Stock 2.0 and 2.2 Dynos?
Originally Posted by Chris S,Nov 6 2006, 09:10 PM
120hp/L is easy, motorcycle engines far surpass it no problem.
Lets take the '99 Suzuki gsx-1300 Hayabusa as an example. Considered the fastest street bike when it came out, tested max hp 153 / 1.3l = ~118 hp/ltr.
Also just to clarify, make sure you guys say "most horsepower per liter of displacement for a naturally aspirated PISTON engine" less you forget those Wankel's over at mazda got us beat if you don't specify piston.
Originally Posted by AssassinJN,Nov 9 2006, 09:02 AM
Uh? Are you sure about that? I would say that it may have been surpassed but certainly not easily.
Lets take the '99 Suzuki gsx-1300 Hayabusa as an example. Considered the fastest street bike when it came out, tested max hp 153 / 1.3l = ~118 hp/ltr.
Also just to clarify, make sure you guys say "most horsepower per liter of displacement for a naturally aspirated PISTON engine" less you forget those Wankel's over at mazda got us beat if you don't specify piston.
Lets take the '99 Suzuki gsx-1300 Hayabusa as an example. Considered the fastest street bike when it came out, tested max hp 153 / 1.3l = ~118 hp/ltr.
Also just to clarify, make sure you guys say "most horsepower per liter of displacement for a naturally aspirated PISTON engine" less you forget those Wankel's over at mazda got us beat if you don't specify piston.

Originally Posted by AssassinJN,Nov 9 2006, 11:02 AM
Uh? Are you sure about that? I would say that it may have been surpassed but certainly not easily.
Lets take the '99 Suzuki gsx-1300 Hayabusa as an example. Considered the fastest street bike when it came out, tested max hp 153 / 1.3l = ~118 hp/ltr.
Lets take the '99 Suzuki gsx-1300 Hayabusa as an example. Considered the fastest street bike when it came out, tested max hp 153 / 1.3l = ~118 hp/ltr.
New Ducati 1098 - 160 hp, 1.1 L = 145 hp/L
Modern 600's have no problem exceeding 180 hp/L.
All else being equal, the lower the displacement, the higher the hp/L potential (since you can get higher revs w/ lower reciprocating mass).
at the end of his post he clearly stated that the AP2 is faster because of gearing.
So cliff notes of his long winded "hypothetical world" post is..
IF the AP1 had better gearing it would be faster than the AP2. But it doesnt, So AP2 FTW.
(that lovely race video which comparied the 3 s2000s it was pretty clear how gearing can affect a race. Its HUGE)
So cliff notes of his long winded "hypothetical world" post is..
IF the AP1 had better gearing it would be faster than the AP2. But it doesnt, So AP2 FTW.
(that lovely race video which comparied the 3 s2000s it was pretty clear how gearing can affect a race. Its HUGE)
If it was up to me I would chose an AP1 because thats where the heart of the S2000 really is. If you want the world record holder for most powerful inline 4c engine then go with the AP1... If you want a car that you can dick around in go with the AP2 because it for fun to me. ive driven both and like the ap1 far more because of the raw power thats at the drivers hands.




how do you get 2.6l?


