I was watching a special on tv n saw they were bragging about the new SRT8 delivering 70hp per liter.. After figuring it up i realized that my 99 dodge avenger 2.5 v6 puts out 68 hp per liter n our lincoln ls puts out 67 hp per liter n our 5.7 liter hemi puts out 61 hp per liter. I found all this pretty sad considerind our SRT6's put out 111 hp/ liter. Now thats impressive. Guess thats why our cars are so suprisingly quick, lol.

 

Any forced induction car will have a higher hp/l ratio, its like having extra cylinders without the reciprocating mass. Even for a supercharged motor 111 hp/l is a very impressive number, considering the vette z-r1's goal was 100 hp/l.

 

With a naturally aspirated engine, when you really throw money behind the R&D and engineering, you get things like:

Ferrari 599GTB Fiorano - 5,999cc V12; 620HP; 103.35HP/L
Ferrari F430 - 4,308cc V8; 490HP; 113.74HP/L
Lamborghini Gallardo LP560-4 - 5,204cc V10; 553HP; 106.35HP/L
Audi R8 - 4.2L V8; 420HP; 100HP/L
BMW M3 - 3,999cc V8; 414HP; 103.53HP/L

When the budget is more modest you get things like:

Ford Mustang GT - 4.6L V8; 300HP; 65.22HP/L
Dodge Charger R/T - 5.7L V8; 370HP (2009 spec); 64.91HP/L
Dodge Charger SRT8 - 6.1L V8; 425HP; 69.67HP/L
Corvette Z06 - 7.0L V8; 505HP; 72.14HP/L
Dodge Viper SRT/10 - 8.4L V10; 600HP; 71.43HP/L

 

Honda S2000-120hp per liter
I still miss mine.

 

Odd that HP didn't increase when they jumped from 2.0L to 2.2L though, which then dropped the HP/L figure down to 109.1


I would be remiss to not mention that the relatively lower budget, larger engines I listed above tend to make far greater torque numbers than the pricier, smaller displacement engines from the first group. And since HP is essentially derived from actual torque measurements, and torque is ultimately what gets you moving, that's an important fact.

As further evidence of what downwardspiral mentioned about forced induction engines, consider the above referenced Honda S2000 naturally aspirated 2.2L engine: 240HP/165lb-ft. compared to the turbocharged 2.4L engine in the Dodge SRT4 and Chrysler PT Cruiser GT. With the simple bolt on of the Stage 1 computer they make the same 240HP but a whopping 265lb-ft of torque, fully 100 more than the much higher revving Honda. With the Mopar Stage 3 upgrade that same engine produces 355HP/365lb-ft or a whopping 148HP/L !

When I had my Miata I always thought it would be a blast to rip the engine out of my PT and drop it into the little roadster. All that torque in that little car, without the added weight of a V8 swap on the front end would have made for one hell of a fast and agile car.

 

yeah honda moved the s2k to a 2.2L for america since americans kepted complaining about the lack of torque. In europe they kepted a 2.0L. Hp/Liter isn't really a good way of measuring a cars performance anyways.

You'll noticed that the sports cars listed above have higher hp numbers per liter because of more rev's at the expense of torque and the muscle cars listed about have more torque at the expense of revs with lower hp numbers.

Just depends on what you want, on the track you want more rev's, at the drag you want more torque since your only going 1/4mil.

The best engines usually have a balance of both.

 

I think your best friend is HP/LB. Remove some weight from any of those cars and it's amazing how really quick they do become. Of course none of the cars mentioned were poor performers to begin with. But weight is the main killer. Just imagine how fast the SRT6 would be 200 lbs lighter!

 

Working on it. I'm shooting for 300lbs under curb weight without getting serious or too crazy.

 

100% spot on. Which is why people who don't know any better laugh at the Lotus Elise/Exige for only have 190HP, but that's more than enough power to make the 1960lb Elise a damn quick car.

 

Exactly. This hp/liter is silly if the engine is bulkier and heavier than another engine with similar power.

 

About 2/10's quicker in the 1/4 mile?

 

Dumping the factory exhaust and going with stainless 3" straight back or duals will lighten you up 25-30 lbs right there.

 

sorry, double post.

 

I remember when it came out they were bragging about having the most powerful(power per liter) production engine ever. The sad part is the 30ft. lbs of torque per liter. LOL

 

Here is some info I picked up out of Autoweek on this subject when the new ZR-1 came out.

https://www.crossfireforum.org/forum...highlight=zr-1

 

i think he was either quoted out of context or he's a idiot. There a lot of cars running more then 100hp/per liter running reliabily. Especially when you start looking at lower displacement engines like 4 cylinders. Long as your have the quality of parts to run on that level.