Re: Small displacement, big horses.

From: Jeff Lee (jlee@atlanta.nsc.com)
Date: Wed Feb 11 1998 - 09:36:19 EST


Robert Trottmann wrote:
>
> I keep hearing about smaller engines, kicking out some serious horses.
> But I can't get over one thing. These engines have to run higher rpm's,
> and run hotter, right? Even if i'm wrong there, do these engines last
> as long as larger ones? I just like the feeling of being pushed hard
> into the seat with acceleration, and turning only 3500 rpm. I know that
> that big engine isn't working as hard as it can, and that it'll be there
> when I settle down and get a wife. (well, maybe not 'til he|| freezes
> over, but close) :-)

I owned 2 Honda Accords, 83 and 87. Traded the 83 in with 160K+ miles.
Sold the 87 with 130K+ miles - to get my Dak ;). The engines in those
cars were revvin little besties. The 87 had a 2L 4 banger which I
regularly shifted at 3500-4500rpm since it was new, and would rev to
5000rpm without alot of effort. Neither of the Accords used a drop of
oil between changes at the time I got rid of them. Smaller high-rev
engines can have plenty of longevity if designed and maintained well.

The throttle response and rev potential of a well-designed small engine
is typically much better than the larger ones. Just plain phyisics -
less rotating mass.

And as for kick-in-pants acceleration... I drove a Porche 911 with a
little ol' 6 cylinder (somewhere between 2L to 3L displacement) that
could easily nail you to the seat when you mashed the throttle (even
from 60mph). And talk about revs - 6000-7000rpm, no problem. Can you say
120mph in 3rd? Now I don't think I'd want to try to pull a boat with a
Porche - different kind of vehicle, different purpose.

Small engines can be real cool.

jeff
98 RC 4x2 V8 5spd 3.55SG



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:08:12 EDT