Datsun Dreaming
(O=O/-180sx-\O=O)
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 821
Likes: 0
Doesnt see what you did
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 0
It makes a lot less torque which is what a truck should have, so how is it better? And Hp is less useful in a truck so your argument isnt working well here either. Small changes to either engines ECU would completely change the power output of as well. If there was a 5.6 or 5.7l motor that was compariable and made lots more power and tq then youd have an argument, but your 5.3 lost out on what 50ftlbs on only a .3L difference? OUCH. Yeah it can swing both ways, so you havent proven anything either.
It makes less torque, because its a smaller motor, you wanted to compare HP and Displacement, now you want to take torque into the game for an excuse because you lost on HP/Liter with the 5.3 vs the VK56
Sorry the truck didnt get the 5.7, if you want to use a similar year "truck" motor, my "truck" 6.0 was rated for 345 HP and 360 ft lbs
Or the "truck" L92 with 403/417
But hey, not like it makes more power in a smaller package or anything.
Im a spacepanda
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Honda, a bunch of bullshit about hp/liter, its what honda kids have been doing for years after getting beat, they make excuses about having less displacement.
So basically what you're saying is "hey im a retard, i've got no valid technical information to join the discussion/arguement, but i want to be part of the party too, so i'll throw my bitching in like im on the rag"
So basically what you're saying is "hey im a retard, i've got no valid technical information to join the discussion/arguement, but i want to be part of the party too, so i'll throw my bitching in like im on the rag"
__________________
Bitch please
Bitch please
Doesnt see what you did
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 0
Oh, and chris, you of all people ? C'mon you should know better, sweet some peak numbers ? What happened with that spreadsheet of yours ? 5.7L 400 rwhp dyno sheet plugged into your little spreadsheet coming out faster than your 430 rwhp sr20det ?
Area under the curve, funny little thing it is.
Area under the curve, funny little thing it is.
Doesnt see what you did
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 0
Are you a skitz? Seriously? Were in the fuck did Honda shit come into play? Oh ya, I forgot, you like to veer away from the topic at hand and hit a fucking tree. I dont want to add any "tech" info; why? Because I dont want to read your stupid shit anymore. Did you know Mt Kilimanjaro is 19341'. See what I did there, I did a you.
HP/Liter is a common HONDA kid excuse, when making less power.
Is that simple enough for you to understand ?
Do I need to spell it out a little slower ?
Im a spacepanda
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Read back, YOU brought up HP/Liter. It was a simple conversation on flow/fluid dynamics and look at what YOU made it into. If you go slower, will you post less? If so, slow that shit the fuck down for me brah.
__________________
Bitch please
Bitch please
Please hold...
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,085
Likes: 0
Also to clairfy, I've in no way said the LSX motors are crap, I just dont think they're superior to other motors either. The only V8 I'm interested in is the Ford 5.0. It has the widest range of power of any american V8 and out of the box it rev's higher. For my taste in how I want the car set up thats what I want. I dont want tall gearing and lots of low end grunt. I want a motor that makes broad power but also goes up past 7k and can sit there while still making lots of power. And as far as displacement is concerned it kicks the LS3's ass. 15 less hp and 30less torque from a 1.3L disatvantage? Thats pretty awesome. The Boss 5.0 makes more of both hp and tq than the LS3, rev's higher and has a wider power band and doesnt really weigh any more. The only down side is its taller.
__________________
Team White Car 2010
Team White Car 2010
tire eater
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
see, i already rubbed one out and you all are still at it...
now i ask...
who wasted time and who used it wisely?
now i ask...
who wasted time and who used it wisely?
__________________
Visit J1Nracing.com! Visit J1Nracing.com! Visit J1Nracing.com! Visit J1Nracing.com! Visit J1Nracing.com!
Box on FB
Visit J1Nracing.com! Visit J1Nracing.com! Visit J1Nracing.com! Visit J1Nracing.com! Visit J1Nracing.com!
Box on FB
Doesnt see what you did
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 0
You just chose a different engine for something bigger (physically), because the camshaft wasnt what you wanted.
Ooops.
Doesnt see what you did
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 0
The LS9 makes 320 ft lbs at 1000 rpm
585 ft lbs at 4000
I'm sorry i'm not buying the 5.0 having a wide range of power, unless you mean highest peak HP
And in that case, please refer back to camshaft selection.
Choosing that whole engine ultimately because its small displacement and high rev oriented from the start, is just going to result in something with less power when compared to if you had built a high rshared_pm LSX setup in the first place.
