I thought the preferred statistic in these parts is average piston speed?

 

Hmm.

Based on the formula, this is essentially an hp per liter stat, with a slight penalty for higher redlines. I'd imagine that if you ranked these engines on hp/l, the order would be nearly identical.

<shrug>

 

Actually, as rockville stated, it is really a torque per liter measurement (but measuring it at peak power instead of peak torque).

And perhaps useful for S2000 owners for refuting arguments about it being a torque-less engine. Its torque/L is about as high as any.

However, it doesn't show how the S2000 torque falls off at lower rpm more than in the "poor engine design" Vette.

And no, I do not agree with the classifications.

 

I only compare engines on sparkplug-gap-per-head-bolt, any other stat is useless IMHO

FRM is a bot that posts non-relevant crap. Attempting to educate his "readers" is on par with trying to convince readers of the National Enquirer that the rag will print anything that will sell, "facts" are for other papers. If they don't already know that, your saying so isn't going to change anything

 

FRM: This is not www.titecivicsandloosesluts.com/forums ...no one cares about this crap.

 

uh oh!

NA RX-8 Rotary: (228 * 13000) / (1.3 * 9000) = 253.3 psi.


WOW! that must make it the single best engine ever made!! Waaaayy better than the mclaren F1, or even the mighty s2000, since it only has 193 psi!

 

double post

 

Only if you believe Mazda's rating criteria - in reality it displaces as much air per revolution as a 2.6 liter piston engine. Best to evaluate rotaries on power/weight and power/size. Their actual combustion efficiency isn't that good (poor chamber shape dictated by the rotary design)

Rockville, good post. Nothing wrong with looking at BMEP, but it isn't everything.

UL

 

Damnit, my NSX got beat by the RSX, 330i, boxster s, and the 350z.

j/k, good data. Just useless, when taking the car/engine to the track.

 

rockville, chances are I haven