I'm not saying it isn't possible, hell if you throw enough money at a geo metro it will run 8's, I'm only saying that the parts used in this hypothetical 1000hp motor will NOT be factory stock, they may be original parts but they will be modified in some way. If you honestly believe that a factory part on ANY motor will handle that kind of horsepower for any meaningful period of time then you're just niave, plain and simple.

 

No it is not. I'm betting you've never see the car run, since you've obviously never even heard of Shaun Carlson. I've been there, in the pits between runs. It does not get rebuilt "after every single run." Period. God damn you're ignorant.

It's not irrelevant at all. My statement is 100% fact. That is a factory crank supporting 1,000hp. It is not a Scat crank or anything like that. It is a factory crank. Modified? Possibly, but besides maybe knife edging and balancing, it is a factory crankshaft. You confuse "factory" with "factory stock." Look at a rulebook sometime, maybe then you'll understand.


Again. Difference between factory and factory stock. That is not a Trick Flow head. It is not an AFR head. It is not an Edelbrock head. It is a factory head. How many SBC's do you see making 1,000+hp on a factory head? Not many. Let alone the fact that this car has a mere 4 cyls.


You don't know the first thing about this engine block. Did you know there are no main caps? The block splits in half and cradles the crank. It's a *wee* bit stronger than the traditional main cap design, which flexes like crazy.

By the way, judging the car you drive, you won't be "beating me" any time soon.


That is a 7 second car, the times listed on that page are a year old. Do you honestly believe a car is going to run in the 7s with anything LESS than 1,000hp? If you do, you don't know **** about drag racing.

 

This little pissing contest was started when someone made the claim:
Yes, but he's running close to stage 2 times if he's running 13.2 [and later] There are very inexpensive mods for forced induction cars that make big gains. The problem is that they also reduce longevity significantly.

So what's the point? Jim took exception to that claim, based on first hand knowledge. Nobody was talking about longevity in 1000Hp motors. It was relative to whether a stage 2 motor would reduce longevity significantly. Stage 2 is only 280 hp http://www.mopar.com/srt_stage_2.htm so THAT's why Jim said it makes no difference.

Yes, it's a fact that more horsepower causes increased wear, however, it is NOT a fact that stage 2 levels cause any increased wear. It is only your *****umption that it does. Meanwhile, Jim has first hand knowledge that it doesn't. Not at street levels.

 

while may know a lot about drag racing you obviously have a pretty loose grasp on the english language....do you even know what "irrelevent" means? I'll clue you in, it means "of no consequence", fact or not, its IRRELEVENT.

BTW, I never said anything about beating you, as in a drag race, what I wrote was that I'd like to beat some common sense into your head (as in physically beat). Besides, I'll race your neon (which you're obviously so proud of) anyday and hand your *** directly to you. Sure you could beat me on your crotch rocket or in your 11 second mustang, but I'm calling you out in the car we are having a discussion about.

Anyway, you are correct, I assumed you meant factory stock. So in that regard I stand by my original statement, there are no factory stock 1000hp neon motors and I defy you to prove otherwise (or prove anything at all, as of right now you haven't proven anything, and its still your word against mine).

 

ok since jim isnt here, im gonna pick up kinda where he left off. why CANT that motor withstand 1000hp? i think its pretty obvious to everyone that higher horsepower levels are made by increasing the amount of air the engine can move. more air means more heat. more heat leads to detonation. if you can control detonation then you are fine.

that engine is also an inline engine; again another obvious point. inline engines are SIGNIFICANTLY stronger by design than a vee style engine. its common sense because the crank is only taking forces from one direction at any given time. it doesnt have multiple rods pushing n multiple directions.

so you tell me WHY that engine cant withstand 1000hp. and dont just say "because 1000hp has more wear than 250hp" because you will lose all creditibility.

 

OK...I'll break it down real simple like for you....

we were arguing about the engines ability to withstand the 1000hp not to make it.....and no just keeping the detonation in check is not all you need to worry about as I shall elaborate on shortly....

Keep in mind at ALL times that I am refuting a claim* that an SRT4 motor will make 1000hp "factory stock" (* a claim later to be clarified as "factory modified")

The head: A factory stock head that flows well enough to make useable torque at 200hp levels WILL NOT flow enough air to make 1000hp. Before you even start to think about saying "yeah well just crank up the boost" I'll tell you that this method will only work up to a point and then the flow will become far to turbulent to be usefull. The head must be ported/polished, given new valves possibly, etc. etc. etc....hence, it will cease to be factory stock

Crank: The problem with a factory crank withstanding 1000hp is not the amount of shear force due to the rods, as I already stated the rods will fail LONG before they shear the crank apart. It is the inertial force that will be experienced when the engine rapidly accelerates through the rpm band which will destroy the crank. A factory crank will not be well balanced enough to withstand this force, hence it will need to be balanced/knife edged etc. etc....and NO LONGER WILL IT BE FACTORY STOCK.....

Block: I will take back my statement that the block will not withstand 1000hp...Big Red Jim has enlightened me to the superior block design and in light of this I concede that the block MIGHT be able to withstand 1000hp if the cylinder walls are thick enough not to necessitate being sleaved.

Side note: you are missinformed about inline engines being stronger by design.
What you might be attempting to regurgitate here is that inline engines are able to rev higher than V configuration engines. This is due to the harmonics that develop at higher engine speeds in a V configuration engine which do not develop in a (properly balanced) inline engine. also....The crank is under the same number of forces in both configuration engines. It "feels" the force of the rods pushing down on it and the force of the main caps pushing up on it......the only difference is that in an inline engine these two forces act verticley and in a V engine they act at an angle......

 

do you have a factual basis for any of what you just said? you still didnt prove anything, you just reiterated what you have already said.

ok where to start? head flow is whats nice about DOHC motors. the flow a TON. it could very easily flow enough for 1000hp. the head can flow that much and still make useable torque at the 200hp level from the size of the turbo. this isnt a stock ls1 we are talking about here.

let me ask you then, why there isnt an aftermarket crank for the honda B series engines? or aftermarket head? its because in stock form these parts suffice for even the 6 and 7 second drag cars. hell the first aftermarket transmission just came out not too long ago for them. the stock head on a honda can see over 800whp from what ive seen.

i still have not seen any proof yet. just reiteration.

 

You just contradicted yourself why inline is stronger than Vee, unfortunaely there are no V and inline motors of the same displacement built with the same parts. so all we have to go off is what we have around us. you know the saying "RPMS.. ruins peoples motors" thats a fact. its not "HP ruins peoples motors" the higher you can rev and continue to make power. is the stronger the motor is than another that can't. while making the same power, Compare a built 2jz to a built LC2 (buick grand national motor)

 

I have no need or desire to "prove" anything to you, or anyone else for that matter. Proof of what I type can be found in Engineering Mechanics text books ( Statics, Fluid Dynamics, Mechanics of Materials) If you don't believe me then go look it up there. Either way I really dont care.

When did this discussion become about honda B series engines? This whole little paragraph you just typed is completely irrelevent. Now before you say "its not irrelevent, its %100 fact", please see above post for definition of the word irrelevent.

 

In this context rapidly means accelerating through the RPM band more quickly. Say a stock motor will go from 1000 rpm to 5000 rpm in 4 seconds, a heavily modified motor will accelerate from 1k to 5k in maybe 2 seconds (given the same gearing etc.). I was talking about a 1000hp motor accelerating through its rpm range more quickly than stock which causes INCREASED INERTIAL LOADS ...you do know what inertia is dont you?

here you are just plain wrong, tensile loads are axial loads which pull away from a member, or stretch it. Notice, if you will, the striking similarity between the word "tensile" and the word "tension", see there, its not so hard. The loads we are discussing are compressive (and in the case of the crank, shear).


again, wrong....the LOAD (not pressure) is put from the piston onto the wrist pin, wrist pin onto rod, rod onto rod bearing, and rod bearing onto crank, crank onto crank bearing and finally crank bearing onto main cap. Then if you want to keep going from the main cap the load is transferred into the bolts holding the main cap on, then from the bolts to the block , then from the block to the motor mounts......etc. etc. etc.. This is all an example of aplication of newtons third law of motion .....point being the loading does not stop at the rods, or do you think you can argue with Sir Isaac Newton?

"because" is one word pal.



This will be my last post in this thread, I dont even care anymore, if you want to go on living believing that a stock neon motor will make 1000hp then go ahead....

 

I was thinkin the same thing lol

 

 

you still have yet to prove anything to me except that you have an unfounded hypothesis that has no factual basis for this discussion. you made a few posts that added to the arguement that had others prove they were right. so i called your bluff. and you failed to prove what you said was true. im still waiting on that proof.



the b series engine came into this when you said that no factory stock crank could withstand 1000hp. i said you were wrong because there are 1000hp single second hondas running stock cranks. and FWIW i know what irrelevant means and in this case what i said WAS relevant.

 

I guess you're right. I absolutely love arguing about stuff like this. I'll give you your $10 as soon as you come to my house and pick it up .

Now I was assuming that you knew what inertia, tension, and compression are and I guess I was wrong....lets consult a dictionary shall we....

Inertia: a property of matter by which it remains at rest or in uniform motion in the same straight line unless acted upon by some external force.
Applied to the crank: If the crank accelerates too quickly the inertial forces may cause it to flex and break. Notice the use of the word "accelerate". This has nothing to do with redline, or even any specific rpm. If the crank accelerated from 1000rpm to 1001rpm in .00000000000000001 seconds (or tried to) the inertial force would tear the crank apart like a piece of paper. This is what I am talking about with respect to the neon crank.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...ary&va=tension


http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...ary&va=tensile

...see above and read em and weep. Tension is THE OPPOSITE OF COMPRESSION. THERE ARE NO TENSILE FORCES ACTING ON A ROD IN AN ENGINE. That instrument tests axial loads which can be TENSION OR COMPRESSION. For compression it will push the member against itself for tension it will pull it apart. I have first hand experience using such a machine to test a piece of aluminum.

Now....difference between pressure and load.. Pressure is Load per unit area. Load is a force. Pressure is measured in PSI, Bar, Kpa, etc. etc.
Load is measured in Lbs. and newtons. How bout some water to wash all that down now that you have to eat your words.

Honestly, my room mate and I were on the ground laughing when we read "
tensile is a Compression load, its does not stretch. it compresses!! ".....seriously man, keep it coming, this is truly entertaining.

 

oh man you too, this is too much.....ok lets get this straight...

I say : "I dont need or want to prove this to you, if you want proof look it up"

You say: "well you still haven't proved it"

.....ooook.....we have covered this...I am not going to sit here online and explain engineering mechanics to you, If you want to learn, look it up. For the crank discussion look in books title "statics", "dynamics", and "mechanics of materials" and if you're really into it "elasticity theory"....for the cylinder head look in "fluid dynamics".