An 05 STi is rated at 300 HP going to an AWD drivetrain. A full exhaust (headers back) and intake LT1 is going to be above 300 at the crank. With the weight difference and drivetrain difference a STOCK 05 STi would be a good race for his full exhaust and intake LT1.

 

It all depends on the race. From a dig on the street, equal drivers, the sti will pull ahead a couple lengths and hold it until close to the 1/4 mile mark where the LT1 will start to catch up. From a roll, it should be very close.

They are pretty quick, but the fact remains that you have lots more cylinders to play with if you mod heavily. A badass 4 from the factory is just that. You start making more power, and drivability on the street starts nose-diving pretty quickly. Where when you have more displacement and 2 cylinder banks to play with, you can effectively make twice the power before you run into those drivability issues. Give me 20k to mod with, and either a sti or an LT1, I would be making 8s on the LT1, or struggling for 9s on the sti.

 

well said esteinmaier

i always try to tell people that. regardless if the car is faster stock, v8s are the motors ith WAY more potential. even over euro 10's and 12's. and MUCH better money for money, well, that kinda depends. with 3k to spend, i'd rather buy something turbo'ed, but with like 10k, deff a v8.

 

I'm looking at it from a potential standpoint. A 1 liter motor has to spin twice as fast as a 2 liter motorto make the same power, all else equal. Or a 1 liter motor might have to spin to 4k before it spools a turbo, while the 2 liter one does it at 2k, all else equal again. That basically means you can put twice the turbo on the 2 liter motor while keeping the powerband wide enough to be usable, making twice the power. Which is why you see Honda guys spinning their 1.6 liter motors to 11k. Kinda foolish, seeing as you're moving more air in a 5.0L V8 at a gentle 3800 RPM. But then again a 4 cylinder fits in a tin can easier than a massive v8 does.

 

http://www.iowaautoforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=10455

i have a long post in there somewhere about tq,hp, and the advantages of high rpm vs low. ill probably clean it up and post it around here somewhere because it is something that not many people think about when doing the hp vs torque argument

 

Specter, sorry to ruin your day, but that was the most retarded thread I've ever read. It's not what's more important, HP or TQ. HP is a calculation of torque, and they are not even on the same side of the equals sign. The fact is, by the time you run power through a transmission, it's all about TQagainst any givenwheel speed. If you're making a lot of horsepower at high RPM, it's geared down to the same torque at a given wheel speed as the engine spinning half as much but pushing twice as hard. So in that way, I guess HP is what makes a fast car in the 1/4. But it's still got to be usable power, not just dyno numbers. If you made 100 ft/lb at 54000 RPM, you're still making about 1000 HP. Put it through a 10:1 gear, and now you're at 1000 ft/lbon the output gear @ 5400 RPM.

It's like arguing what's more important for breathing. Air or oxygen? When we all know that oxygen is one of the many elements in the air we breathe so we're just being dumb.

Now if cars didn't have transmissions or any effective gearing at all and the wheels were driven directly off the crank, I could see this argument holding water, but what they should really be fighting over is who's got a bigger *****. At least they could pull out a ruler and figure out who wins.

 

did u find MY post in there chief? thats the one I intended for you all to read, but the buildup and the BS from those guys allows u to understand some of the more personal remarks i made.


you get 3 for that

 

OK, you made a good post. lol. That's funny. I stopped reading 2 posts before yours when I was getting fed up with that thread.

 

here be my post which concerns your post about hondas and rpm and whatnot

[quote]
screw all you guys. tq and hp are both worthless. RPM is where its at!

no, not really, i just thought id pick out a favorite variable and cling to it for no reason.

hp varies directly with torque. more torque=more hp at a given rpm. therefore, the trick would be to design an engine that can continue to make torque at a higher rpm. this is difficult because all engine stop making power (and remember an engine only makes torque) the higher they climb. The engines we have sacrifce low end torque.

to make a valid argument here we have to play a little game i like to call "all things equal". If you want that car to move off the line you now have to take care of your low end power loss. we now have to do things like cut weight (a big thank you to the gentleman who made the 600/600/3500lbs vs 600/350/2100lbs argument... or whatever the numbers were). Now all things are not equal. OR, we can increase the hell out of our traction so that we can get our engine to a point where it is making enough torque to make the proper hp numbers so that we can move the car out of the hole *points a big finger at Jesse* AWD. Again, things arent equal. You guys cannot make the claim that torque isnt important. all you can say is "ive found ways to make a low-torque car fast".

A little more:

the entire argument makes no sense from a physics standpoint to all of you physicists out there. HP is the linear expression of torque. HP is variable by rpm and tq, but tq is variable by rpm across the various platforms, which is really what this argument is about: the platforms. If we really wanna look at this then we have to combine the variability of engine tq #s across rpm against hp and end up with a nifty 3d graph yeilding the geezers theoretical "optimal platform" (just messin ). But instead we hold rpm as a constant and solve at each rpm. this is what a chassis dyno does. ----recap---- rpm is the independant variable, tq is dependant on rpm, and hp is dependant on both, therefore for u math guys, the laws of physics, nature, Mrs Stephens algebra class, and all things holy dictate that we hold our independant constant for each hp # we look at. just the way it works seriously, what is he talking about anymore? did i miss 4 pages and not realize it? nono you didnt miss anything, the point is that any discussion between tq and hp is meaningless. what the OP is really saying is that low-end torque doesnt matter as much as the ability to continue making torque in high rpms. ex: my old 4.6 mustang would fall flat on its face after about 4500 rpm. no more torque, but thats just about the time some of you honda guys start breathing.

ok, so lets look at this then: low end torque vs high end torque, and remember, all things equal (were still playing).

for comparitive purposes lets look at an engine that makes 500 ft lbs across the spectrum. probably not a gas motor........ but it doesnt matter, because we are only looking at hp, the sheer ability to accelerate. because we are talking low vs high, and because i dont like decimels, Im going to measure this motor at 525.2 rpm and 52,520 rpm. This would seem nuts, but remember our theoretical motor flatlines it tq, so our hp curve is strictly exponential. at the low rpm value our motor makes 50 hp. at the high it makes 5000 hp. sweet. ok, so jimmy tweaks the flux capacitor on our motor and it makes a whopping 501 ft lbs across the board now. At these same numbers, we now make 50.1 hp down low (remember, as defined, the hp is the cars ability to accelerate under ideal conditions). So what about up high? well, 501x52520/5252 = 5010 hp.

so in our theoretical motor down low we gained 50% hp per unit tq added. however, up high we gained 1000% hp for every unit tq we added(for anyone not good with percents, 1 added, 10 yeilded, (10/1)*100%). because we kept all things equal

 

see, u gotta give me a little credit here man

[8D]