Quote:
Originally posted by russotto
...
But for measuring the performance of the engine, hp/L is inappropriate. It simply fails to measure anything of value. If it were possible to build an engine with twice the displacement but the same weight and form factor as another engine with the same power, those engines would have the same performance; the hp/L measure would show the larger-displacement engine as having half the performance.
|
Notice a continued denial without a single example, cited trend, engineering principa, or supporting fact. Russotto would have you believe that since a 2 liter engine and a 5 liter engine both output the same horsepower, then both are equal performance. That is silly. The higher performance 2 liter engine also weights less, occupies less space, is more reliable, and is quieter.
Demonstrated perviously was the average performance Acura V-6 compared to a low performance Jeep that required a V-8. Jeep requires two extra pistons, extra valves, cams lobes, rings, fuel injection system, more block and head, bigger body to hold the largers, low performance Jeep engine, heavier suspension, and larger tires - all because Jeep is a low performance vehicle.
Russotto's only example is to compare a Wankel technology engine to an Otto technology engine, cite the different Hp/liter (as it should be), then declare Hp/l as no measure of performance. Why not compare a jet engine to a nuclear power plant? What, other than his opinion, has Russotto provided to disprove the Hp/liter ratio?
Reams of evidence demonstrates that Horsepower per liter is and was used to measure performance. We know that more energy to create sound means less energy for shaft Horsepower. Previous reams of numbers demonstrate that trend. We know that higher performance engines are machined to post-1970 tolerances whereas lower performance engines are machines to pre-1970 tolerances. Again the Horsepower per liter ratio quantifies that fact.
Furthermore we know that car companies run by engineers will increase engine performances. Acura 1999 Hp/liter for same engines: 78/94/-/65/67/70/61/69. Acura 2001 Hp/liter for same engines: 78/94/108/70/81/70/64/69 ('-' that version of engine did not exist in 1999). Acura over two years continues to increase performance as demonstrated by Horsepower per liter. Again Hp/liter ratio quantifies that fact.
Toyota Hp/l for 1999/2001 models: Avalon - 67 up to 70; Camry - 61 & 65 up to 68 & 65; Celica - 67 upgrades to 78 & 100; Corrolla - 67 upgraded to 69. Rav4 - 63 upgraded to 74; Sienna - 65 upped to 70. Again Hp/liter ratio quantifies that fact.
Obviously Hp/Liter measures performance as indicated by the sound, by improved machine tolerance, by the long previous examples of GM vs so many engineer designed cars, AND no by the continuous improvement in performances as demonstrated by Acura and Toyota.
My statements are supported by facts. Horsepower per liters is an accurate measure of engine performance - AND a logical benchmark to determine what companies should earn your praise and ire. Horsepower per liter also is an excellent measure of the good vs. evil automobile manufacturers. Due to their low performance products (and the resulting loss of American jobs), all should put GM on their list of disliked companies. Horsepower per liter suggests who should be earning your approval.