Quote:
Originally Posted by han405
I thought the entire basis of this discussion is to find a more efficient engine that has the same performance, the category S65 engine is in..
locomotive engines have a lot more displacement and hp than the S65 engine. how come I don't see those in your list? huh?
locomotive engines perhaps are more efficient when you look at fuel consumption to engine displacement ratio or fuel consumption to engine hp ratio.
just like all the other engines you quoted, -> not in the same league (category) the s65 engine is in.
then perhaps you can educate me, you are saying ALL of the engines you quoted are rated over 400 stock? is that correct?
|
It's seems pretty arbitrary to classify engines based on their displacement. Why not classify based on weight or overall size? I guess that's because the government does-- which is probably a result of clueless politicians.
Yeah, an LS3 motor displaces more than an S65. But the LS3
weighs less (415lbs vs 445lbs).
So the LS3 is a lower-weight engine, with fewer moving parts, more HP, more torque, and better fuel economy.
And before somebody says something about antiquated pushrod designs, just remember that overhead cam designs pre-date pushrod designs by several decades.
Anyway that's the former vette owner in me coming out... I do love the S65 sound at 8000rpm. And I love BMW straight sixes (particularly the diesel!)