Zambroski Posted October 7, 2016 Share Posted October 7, 2016 10 minutes ago, f7ben said: nope 6 minutes ago, Sludgey said: Yup Best conversation ever! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f7ben Posted October 7, 2016 Share Posted October 7, 2016 sorry ...nope Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sear Posted October 7, 2016 Share Posted October 7, 2016 #23 - 25 splendid But that's hardly a scientific comparison of the mechanical virtues of the pushrodless engine. That scientific analysis would be presented in quantifiable parameters: - horsepower to weight ratio - hp / cubic inch - redline - etc. "nope" "Yup" doesn't cut it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted October 7, 2016 Author Share Posted October 7, 2016 Hp\L is a useless performance metric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted October 7, 2016 Author Share Posted October 7, 2016 The camaro ss is rated the same fuel mileage as the v6 mustang wtf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gold Member BOHICA Posted October 7, 2016 Gold Member Share Posted October 7, 2016 Camaro is a 4 cylinder most of the time if you are looking for mpg. 8 when you push it. Under load they are fuel hogs. My buddies 2014 6.2 silverado is a >14 mpg rig at 80 mph cruise set.... cause its never in 4 cylinder mod... 5.0 and ecoboost for that matter in the same conditions are 16-18 mpg rigs depending on rear axle ratio. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted October 7, 2016 Author Share Posted October 7, 2016 5 minutes ago, BOHICA said: Camaro is a 4 cylinder most of the time if you are looking for mpg. 8 when you push it. Under load they are fuel hogs. My buddies 2014 6.2 silverado is a >14 mpg rig at 80 mph cruise set.... cause its never in 4 cylinder mod... 5.0 and ecoboost for that matter in the same conditions are 16-18 mpg rigs depending on rear axle ratio. 5.0 is super inefficient Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f7ben Posted October 7, 2016 Share Posted October 7, 2016 1 minute ago, Sludgey said: 5.0 is super inefficient nope Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted October 7, 2016 Author Share Posted October 7, 2016 4 minutes ago, f7ben said: nope Yup Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f7ben Posted October 7, 2016 Share Posted October 7, 2016 Just now, Sludgey said: Yup I put 60k miles on the 5.0 ........it is very powerful when compared to the anemic chevy 5.3 and the 5.0 is incredibly efficient Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sear Posted October 7, 2016 Share Posted October 7, 2016 " Hp\L is a useless performance metric " #29 Not for aeronautical engineers it isn't. Mathematics is the language of science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted October 7, 2016 Author Share Posted October 7, 2016 46 minutes ago, sear said: Not for aeronautical engineers it isn't. Mathematics is the language of science. Yes, it's useless Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted October 7, 2016 Author Share Posted October 7, 2016 50 minutes ago, f7ben said: I put 60k miles on the 5.0 ........it is very powerful when compared to the anemic chevy 5.3 and the 5.0 is incredibly efficient Hmmm I've raced the two and the 5.3 won handily. Odd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sear Posted October 7, 2016 Share Posted October 7, 2016 " it's useless " #37 Excellent. useless (y¡s´lîs) adjective 1. Being or having no beneficial use; futile or ineffective. 2. Incapable of functioning or assisting; ineffectual: He panics easily and is useless in an emergency. See synonyms at futile. - use´lessly adverb - use´lessness noun * For it to be "useless" (the word YOU used) it would have to be with zero use. Therefore if I can cite ONE use, ANY use, I prove you wrong. Agreed? In aeronautical engineering, a powered aircraft needs enough thrust to create sufficient thrust to generate enough aerodynamic lift to lift the weight of the aircraft. An aircraft with a thrust to weight ratio of greater than one can climb vertically. But an ostensible aircraft that lacks the thrust to generate the lift to lift itself won't leave the ground under its own power. SO WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH AUTOMOTIVE ENGINEERING? Horsepower to weight ratio is a significant parameter. And engine displacement influences engine weight. Most 7 liter engines weigh more than most 2 liter engines. It's not "useless" if it has a use. It has a use. It has more than one use. So you are wrong again. * Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted October 7, 2016 Author Share Posted October 7, 2016 It's useless. Hp and torque mean something. Hp\L does nothing. Means as much as hp\sandwich. If you lose a race to a guy who has more hp, do you win by default if you have more hp\L? Nope. hp\Lb is much more meaningful Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gold Member BOHICA Posted October 7, 2016 Gold Member Share Posted October 7, 2016 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.