Boosted Falcon

Ok so to be fair this is coming from an Aston Martin 7.3L V12. But it is pushing out 750 BHP which is a decent effort when you consider the original Bugatti Veyron 8.0L Quad Turbo Intercooled W16 engine only produced 1001 HP (764 KW).

See the link for a vid:
http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/asto ... 2010-10-21

BHP is not rear wheel power, its still measured at the motor.

Brake horsepower
Brake horsepower (bhp) is the measure of an engine's horsepower without the loss in power caused by the gearbox, alternator, differential, water pump, and other auxiliary components such as power steering pump, muffled exhaust system, etc. Brake refers to a device which was used to load an engine and hold it at a desired RPM. During testing, the output torque and rotational speed were measured to determine the brake horsepower. Horsepower was originally measured and calculated by use of the indicator (a James Watt invention of the late 18th century), and later by means of a De Prony brake connected to the engine's output shaft. More recently, an engine dynamometer is used instead of a De Prony brake. The output delivered to the driving wheels is less than that obtainable at the engine's crankshaft.

Ok so i did not know this, I was a bit misled there I guess. But none the less still one hell of an effort!

brake horse power doesn't mean "at the brakes"

Steady wrote:brake horse power doesn't mean "at the brakes"

Yes because when I hear brake horse power i automatically think it wont be at the brakes. Also misleading that they said it was measured on a dyno / rolling road.

Doesnt matter, its still the most powerful NA motor ever put into production.

Whoever wrote the 'article' fucked up, and probably thinks the same as you.

krisisdog wrote: probably thinks the same as you used to.

fixed. lol

Just FYI the Veyron has merely 16 cylinders.

Troutman wrote:Just FYI the Veyron has merely 16 cylinders.

and its 4wd. and it can do over 400kms an hr. and its got 22inch run flats. and it rocks.

but the aston is still a pretty good effort.

on the subject of powerful engines. does anyone know if the s2000 still has the most power to capacity out there?

# Petrol (naturally-aspirated) piston engine - 93.13 kW (124.9 hp) per litre - 2009 Ferrari 458 Italia 419 kW (562 hp) 4.499 L V8
# Petrol (forced-induction) piston engine - 151.2 kW (203 hp) per litre - 2009 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution VIII FQ400 302 kW (405 hp) 2.0 L I4
S2000 is 92.1kw (123.5hp) per litre, the Ferrari only came out this year

wow. still not bad for a honda though aye. go the evo.

I think in england they just say bhp out of habit, without actually knowing why they are saying it. I've noticed on Top Gear they say bhp for EVERYTHING, even when they measure a car on the dyno, like "It's got 123 brake horsepower at the wheels" and I'm sitting there just going SIGH.

kw/l is a wank.

Aston Martin wrote:6 speed Automated Manual Transmission with Auto Shift Manual /
Select Shift Manual (ASM/SSM) electro-hydraulic control system

What a name for their gearbox!

http://www.astonmartin.com/eng/thecars/ ... cification

Steady wrote:kw/l is a wank.

why?
its damn impressive.
try working out your own cars' power/litre.
most falcons would be dismal.

sdoylie wrote:

Steady wrote:kw/l is a wank.

why?
its damn impressive.
try working out your own cars' power/litre.
most falcons would be dismal.

I'm obliged to side with Steady on this one, especially as a GM LS series driver. If a motor has good power output, reasonable efficiency, low weight, relatively small external dimensions and easy upgradability, why would anyone care if its engine capacity is a bit higher than average? A given engine might also be dismal in kW-per-cylinder, or kW-per-valve, or kW-to-oil-sump-ratio, but a good motor is a good motor to my mind.

Argument #2, there is a thing called torque, and it isn't the S2000's specialty. I regard the Falcon six as a better motor than the Commodore 3.0 for this very reason, even if the latter is far superior in 'kW/L'.

That said, I admire those kW/L figures from an engineering perspective, even if the big 'BHP' numbers often come at the expense of real-world drivability.

Cheers.

I'm with Steady also - kw/L is for waking over in brochures and nothing else,

What you're looking for is packaging. A 300kw LS2 is a SHITLOAD better than a 300kw 5.4L even though it makes less power per litre, because the 5.4 is a physically massive engine that doesn't really fit in anything apart from a falcon, whereas an LSx motor is comparatively tiny and so can be used in many different types of vehicle. It also has a much better center of gravity and more headroom for power increases.

An RB20DET with a tune, bigger fuel pump, intercooler and 3" exhaust will make 160rwkw, but an ED 4 litre with a cam, tune and exhaust will make the same and take up less physical space doing it, again, with more headroom for power increases.

you make a good point Rollin.

in the end capacity usually wins out in the maximum power an engine can push out. any v8 lovin neanderthal will tell you that.

Brake horsepower (bhp) is the measure of the engine's horsepower. I thought it has something to do with the brakes. By the way, I bought newaston martin parts to improve the horsepower of my car and bhp as well.

Troutman wrote:

sdoylie wrote:

Steady wrote:kw/l is a wank.

why?
its damn impressive.
try working out your own cars' power/litre.
most falcons would be dismal.

I'm obliged to side with Steady on this one, especially as a GM LS series driver. If a motor has good power output, reasonable efficiency, low weight, relatively small external dimensions and easy upgradability, why would anyone care if its engine capacity is a bit higher than average? A given engine might also be dismal in kW-per-cylinder, or kW-per-valve, or kW-to-oil-sump-ratio, but a good motor is a good motor to my mind.

Argument #2, there is a thing called torque, and it isn't the S2000's specialty. I regard the Falcon six as a better motor than the Commodore 3.0 for this very reason, even if the latter is far superior in 'kW/L'.

That said, I admire those kW/L figures from an engineering perspective, even if the big 'BHP' numbers often come at the expense of real-world drivability.

Cheers.

The S2000 engine does alright for it self considering it's operating RPM is 1000rpm to 9000rpm.
Peak power and torque spread on that engine is awsome and it's torque is still above average for a 2L engine.

It's like a 4L falcon engine making about 490hp and being sedate enough that your nana could drive it to the shops.

Saying an LS engine is better because it makes more torque is like having a wank over the hot chick from next door, It might be fun but you still just having a wank.

you people do realise that when you say "torque" or "hp" your really talking about the same thing right?

you people realise this thread is almost a year old?

Looks like old mate got banned for bumping it also.

isnt BHP like saying F(ly)W(heel)KW?

yes that was established at the start of the thread. Term not usually used here.

Just get a BA spend 40k and have 750 bhp Half the cyl and half the LTR capacity! Run 10s and save hundreds of thousands! WIN

thanks for confirming yet again that you are mentally retarded.
220rwkw SR20 > your car, according to you.

axeman83 wrote:you people do realise that when you say "torque" or "hp" your really talking about the same thing right?

lol.
it amazes me how many people have misguided views on torque and hp.

bentls wrote:

axeman83 wrote:you people do realise that when you say "torque" or "hp" your really talking about the same thing right?

lol.
it amazes me how many people have misguided views on torque and hp.

Of course, what do you expect when thats how so many cars are advertised?

Diesels always claiming their torque figures and petrol claiming their KW figures. Leads to laypeople thinking they are different entities.

They ARE different.

No they arent:

http://www.epi-eng.com/piston_engine_te ... torque.htm

one is derived from the other.

The ARE useful though as they show where the power is in range. Due to the formula being (HP = Torque x RPM ÷ 5252) if you have lots of power down low it will produce a high torque figure. But if your making all your power up top and have a lazy low range power then the torque figure will be lower.

Here are some examples from the website:

Example 1: How much TORQUE is required to produce 300 HP at 2700 RPM?
since HP = TORQUE x RPM ÷ 5252
then by rearranging the equation:
TORQUE = HP x 5252 ÷ RPM
Answer: TORQUE = 300 x 5252 ÷ 2700 = 584 lb-ft.

Example 2: How much TORQUE is required to produce 300 HP at 4600 RPM?
Answer: TORQUE = 300 x 5252 ÷ 4600 = 343 lb-ft.

Example 3: How much TORQUE is required to produce 300 HP at 8000 RPM?
Answer: TORQUE = 300 x 5252 ÷ 8000 = 197 lb-ft.

Example 4: How much TORQUE does the 41,000 RPM turbine section of a 300 HP gas turbine engine produce?
Answer: TORQUE = 300 x 5252 ÷ 41,000 = 38.4 lb-ft.

They are different but they are directly related. You cant have one without the other.

And Carrol Shelby said the perfect quote regarding it in the mid 60s.

Horsepower sells cars, torque wins races.

axeman83 wrote:you people do realise that when you say "torque" or "hp" your really talking about the same thing right?

In a round a bout kind of way yeah it's the same.
Torque is the actual rotational force, HP is the work done over time. Being that they in fact different, it's perfectly acceptable to talk about them the way it has been.

Maybe back then

F1 cars make less than 300 NM, as a comparison an EA makes 311 NM.

That website explains it perfectly. Look at the graphs down the bottom.

HP is simply a calculation from the measured force of torque when given the RPM.

Are u really comparing a ea to a f1?

Basically, yes.
A 4.0 doing 7,000rpm also has a higher piston speed than a V8 F1 engine doing 18,000rpm.

Does anyone think an EA motor is better than an F1 motor though? I really hope not.
He's just showing that random facts don't mean shit in the real world.

NUT347 wrote:you people realise this thread is almost a year old?

Looks like old mate got banned for bumping it also.

or for saying he has bought Aston Martin parts for his car

What happened to steady

AaronEF8 wrote:He's just showing that random facts don't mean shit in the real world.

Im glad someone is able to interpret a basic argument on the internet.

Yes I was comparing them - directly. Because the obscene comparison shows that the statement of 'torque winning races' is not at all correct. But in saying that with cars in the mid 60's being very low revving hence having high torque compared with HP, that statement was pretty darn spot on at the time.

rhys375 wrote:

AaronEF8 wrote:He's just showing that random facts don't mean shit in the real world.

Im glad someone is able to interpret a basic argument on the internet.

Yes I was comparing them - directly. Because the obscene comparison shows that the statement of 'torque winning races' is not at all correct. But in saying that with cars in the mid 60's being very low revving hence having high torque compared with HP, that statement was pretty darn spot on at the time.

You could probably clarify a statement like that but saying Torque a the aplicable RPM wins races.

Say you have two F1 engine that operate between 10 000rpm and 18 000 rpm they both produce a nice flat torque curve. only one has on average 20nm more torque. In the end the extra torque will mean a faster car.
BUT
As the world goes at that RPM we tend to refer to HP, so you can see where this is leading.

HP power wins races, and good marketing sells cars.