Flat head V8 on HorsepowerTV

whipped · Post by **whipped** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:53 am

hahaha...

They take this flat head V8, do all sorts of head work, install larger valves, bore it, and install a holley roots supercharger (I think they said 7psi?)... probably $10,000 worth of work.

Then they put it on a dyno, and it makes 260hp. :rotflmao:
I hope it was worth it. :blah5:

The Dark Side of Will · Sun Jan 22, 2006 12:39 pm

That's like building an all motor Honda engine...

jstillwell · Post by **jstillwell** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 12:43 pm

Hot Rod style baby. Any asshole can get a taxicab motor.

Shaun41178(2) · Post by **Shaun41178(2)** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 12:55 pm

probably would have been better if they installed 4.9 heads on that motor.

whipped · Post by **whipped** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 1:32 pm

Shaun41178(2) wrote:probably would have been better if they installed 4.9 heads on that motor.

Probably would've flowed better... :rotflmao:

What's wierd is they have the valves in the block, like a small engine. Does that make it an underhead valve? UHV?

Series8217 · Post by **Series8217** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 3:08 pm

whipped wrote:What's wierd is they have the valves in the block, like a small engine. Does that make it an underhead valve? UHV?

Technically yeah but everyone just calls 'em flatheads. It's not like you can have an OHV flathead..

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 3:33 pm

The Dark Side of Will wrote:That's like building an all motor Honda engine...

Honda engines hit some of the highest horsepower per liter ratings around N/A. There is not a vehicle in the GM lineup that comes anywhere near 100hp/l N/A. Neither does Ford, Dodge, Mercedes Benz, Suubara, or fucking Fiat.

I hope to God you are being sarcastic here, as displacement aside I really don't think there is a better platform to build on.

p8ntman442 · Post by **p8ntman442** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 8:36 pm

hey ass hat, find me a 4 cyl engine manufactured b4 1992 that produced 180HP and 150 TQ with 2.3L or less. NOT TO MANY. GM CAN DO IT. The american people dont want it. (yet)

On the tpic of flatheads, a local buddy has a flathead in a indian motorcycle.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 8:47 pm

We aren't in 1992. Today's Honda engines make more horsepower with less displacement at a higher RPM, and STILL make more low end torque than the HO Q4.

crzyone · Post by **crzyone** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 1:04 am

Aaron... what he is trying to say is that GM can do it, they choose not to because thats not what the average American wants.

Most moms and dads are fine with high torque low hp motors, so why would build a high hp/L NA 4cyl?

GM built high hp/L engines before Honda started doing it.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 1:47 am

crzyone wrote:aaron... what he is trying to say is that GM can do it, they choose not to because thats not what the average American wants.

Most moms and dads are fine with high torque low hp motors, so why would build a high hp/L NA 4cyl?

GM built high hp/L engines before Honda started doing it.

I agree, but that doesn't mean that the Honda motors are in any way, shape, or form comparable to flathead motors excepting their basic 4-stroke internal combustion design.

The Dark Side of Will · Mon Jan 23, 2006 3:06 am

aaron wrote:
The Dark Side of Will wrote:That's like building an all motor Honda engine...
Honda engines hit some of the highest horsepower per liter ratings around N/A. There is not a vehicle in the GM lineup that comes anywhere near 100hp/l N/A. Neither does Ford, Dodge, Mercedes Benz, Suubara, or fucking Fiat.

I hope to God you are being sarcastic here, as displacement aside I really don't think there is a better platform to build on.

What does it take to get 260 HP from a naturally aspirated B series? About $10,000. Get over yourself, Aaron.

aaron wrote:We aren't in 1992. Today's Honda engines make more horsepower with less displacement at a higher RPM, and STILL make more low end torque than the HO Q4.

K20: 140 ftlbs, 2.0 litres - 70 ftlbs/litre
Q4: 160 ftlbs, 2.3 litres - 69.5 ftlbs/litre

So how superior is it again?
Keep in mind this is also comparing a 17 year old engine to a modern engine with variable cam phasing.

YFM754 · Post by **YFM754** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 4:54 am

What does it take to get 260 HP from a naturally aspirated B series? About $10,000. Get over yourself, aaron.

aaron wrote:
We aren't in 1992. Today's Honda engines make more horsepower with less displacement at a higher RPM, and STILL make more low end torque than the HO Q4.

K20: 140 ftlbs, 2.0 litres - 70 ftlbs/litre
Q4: 160 ftlbs, 2.3 litres - 69.5 ftlbs/litre

So how superior is it again?
Keep in mind this is also comparing a 17 year old engine to a modern engine with variable cam phasing.

PWNED :3some:

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:12 am

The Dark Side of Will wrote:What does it take to get 260 HP from a naturally aspirated B series? About $10,000. Get over yourself, aaron.

So now you're limiting the motor class and displacement. No, I'll take the 3.2l, and make 280hp stock. You said Honda motor, not B series 4 cylinder.

K20: 140 ftlbs, 2.0 litres - 70 ftlbs/litre
Q4: 160 ftlbs, 2.3 litres - 69.5 ftlbs/litre

Dyno of Fierobsessed's mostly stock Quad 4 (This is also in a Fiero, so not quite factory, the factory setup would yield 5-10whp less across the board)

Dyno of a stock RSX-s

I stand corrected here, as far as torque goes, the RSX gets owned. In fact, the only time the RSX has a clear advantage is from 7000-8000. But it is also down displacement. Having driven and raced a few RSX's, I can say they aren't slow. They'd hand a GTZ Beretta its ass. They have the gearing to take full advantage of the high power curve, and it works. But in this instance, I think the Q4 is the better motor.

But find a GM V6 that compares with the 3.2, there simply isn't one. The 3800 is the closest, and it has over a half liter of displacement and a goddamned blower on top of that. Not to mention how much more it must weigh than the 3.2.

You made a general statement, and an ignorant one at that. A Honda enigne is just as capable, if not more, as a GM, Dodge, or a Mercedes engine liter for liter.

Kohburn · Post by **Kohburn** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:50 am

p8ntman442 wrote:hey ass hat, find me a 4 cyl engine manufactured b4 1992 that produced 180HP and 150 TQ with 2.3L or less. NOT TO MANY. GM CAN DO IT. The american people dont want it. (yet)

On the tpic of flatheads, a local buddy has a flathead in a indian motorcycle.

the american people do want it - the beancounters don't want to give it to them - hense the decline of ford and GM

Kohburn · Post by **Kohburn** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:53 am

aaron wrote: There is not a vehicle in the GM lineup that comes anywhere near 100hp/l N/A. Neither does Ford, Dodge, Mercedes Benz, Suubara, or fucking Fiat.

I hope to God you are being sarcastic here, as displacement aside I really don't think there is a better platform to build on.

now you are talking displacement again? YOU are the one that made the assanine generalization about GM never coming close to 100hp/l

donk_316 · Post by **donk_316** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:53 am

Why does that RSX-S dyno have such a Valley / Mountain in the middle?

Kohburn · Post by **Kohburn** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:54 am

donk_316 wrote:Why does that RSX-S dyno have such a Valley / Mountain in the middle?

v-tec kicks in -- its like running two cams and switching between them.. vs using a single high lift cam and fully variable cam phasing

bryson · Post by **bryson** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 1:11 pm

jstillwell · Post by **jstillwell** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 1:48 pm

Yeah, but if you put that Honda motor in your 32 Hi-boy or your 49 Merc, your gonna get your ass laughed out of the fairgrounds. I thought we were talking about flatheads. They obviously didn't pick the motor for it's viability as a high HP platform. Flatheads are museum pieces, and should be respected as such. I think taking a 80 year old motor from 40 hp to 260 is rather impressive.