14psi on stock internals!

[Faultline]

I have been doing some upgrades on my car:new clutch-lighter flywheel-motor mount inserts-and new 2.5" exhaust. Today, I had made an appointment at Stafford Fabrication to put in a alcohol/water injection set up. So they did! ...as they did I put in some colder spark plugs...that was better than just sitting around. All these latest mods have been in preparation to going to the track , hoping to get into the 14's on a 3k ft elevation track. My weekest link at this point is traction . My best 60ft time to this point has been a poor 2.5! and for every 10th you save at the beginning, you'll save another 10th or two at the end. For example , my friends AWD wrx will get a 15.5 with a 2.4 60ft going 94mph , and a 14.0 going 95mph with a 1.9 60 ft!!. So, I am planning on some drag radials in the future , for the track. With summer heat coming I decided to get set up with water/alcohol injection. SF set up my window washer tank and it's pump , to a nozzle set in my IC pipe right befor the throttle body . It is hooked up to a pressure switch ; that when it reads 8psi, it turns on. That way , it is not on when not necesarry.After the intallation , I took the SF crew to lunch- the 3 of them. If you ever take a glance at the "HaynesXtreme customizing Sport Compact Performance manual" You will see example of turbo set ups. 3 of the turbo headers used as examples are indeed SF's. My kids gave me this maunual as a gift, and one of the SF guys dragged it out of the Vibe to look thru over lunch..."Hey! they didn't ask us to use this!" I listened to the complaints. Then we went off for some test drives.We just kept turning up the boost as Mike Stafford drove, I was gunshot, and one of the techs read the obdII scanner shouting out readings of : timing -A/F ratios and other stuff. We drove to the nearest performance shop for supplies-"7-11". In which I bought all ten pint size bottles of household alcohol, and happily poored 8 of them into the ww resevior. Yep, we were pulling hard in 3rd gear as I saw the needle of by boost guage go up to 14 psi!!!!!!!very awsome power!!!... and no signs of predentonation...a real tribute to the SF set up, the Vibe, and the 1zz motor. I went home and turned the boost down, as such things seemed wrong somehow, ....then I went in the house, and changed my drawers!!

[Devlop]

That is just plain awesome. I would defintely be careful about that much boost. Who knows how long that motor will hold out. Actually, why don't you keep running that and let me know how many miles before it blows. That way I have something to base my car on. heheYea, someday I'll get that injection setup too. I have the port in my plumbing already cuz Rick had the setup, but I didn't have the money at the time to buy it. He was running 12psi with no problems. I can't wait to see some numbers from the track. Good luck with running drag radials, hopefully you don't find a new weakest link. That's the one thing I'm afraid of finding someday.Very awesome.

[ultraviolet]

Hey Faultline, what % alcohol to water mixture are you running?Also, about the 14psi boost, here is an exerpt from one of Rick (Raamaudio) posts about his engine: "...I recommend running 10 PSI at the most for a daily driver setup, 8PSI is an even better idea, the higher boost will cause more rapid wear like it does on all cars. I ran 8 and 12 for over a year before slightly damaging the stock motor on 15PSI. That boost level was an accident as the boost controller failed at one point, could have fixed the engine for less than $100 in parts and by droping the oil pan..."

[slbpsi63]

Faultline...ur my hero!!! LOL I want a charger on my car, but thw wife looks at me like I'm crazy. She just says drive my Jetta, and walks off laughing.

[Faultline]

Quote, originally posted by ultraviolet »Hey Faultline, what % alcohol to water mixture are you running?Also, about the 14psi boost, here is an exerpt from one of Rick (Raamaudio) posts about his engine: "...I recommend running 10 PSI at the most for a daily driver setup, 8PSI is an even better idea, the higher boost will cause more rapid wear like it does on all cars. I ran 8 and 12 for over a year before slightly damaging the stock motor on 15PSI. That boost level was an accident as the boost controller failed at one point, could have fixed the engine for less than $100 in parts and by droping the oil pan..."I am running household alcohol...It says 70%..but I put it in straight. I will probably go 50/50 though...Rick pm'd me when he tweaked his motor, me and Matrix T. Thanks for the heads up. I honestly love 8.5 psi...It is a great setting , and I was running down there today...I am not so "power greedy crazy"....just plain ol' "power greedy" Anyway, It is pre-dentonation that usually blows motors, The internals are not as weak as many have supposed, but it is really really really hard to keep things cool at high boost...forged internalls would take the beating better, but the stock internalls can make power, they just have to be tipped toed around at high boost, and I honestly dont plann running this high much at all.

[Faultline]

Quote, originally posted by slbpsi63 »Faultline...ur my hero!!! LOL I want a charger on my car, but thw wife looks at me like I'm crazy. She just says drive my Jetta, and walks off laughing. I really dont know how I pulled this one off! ...but somehow I have a turbo, and my wife still loves me!!!!...hmmm.....its a mystery.Btw , is the Jetta a 1.8T???????

[slbpsi63]

Quote, originally posted by Faultline »I really dont know how I pulled this one off! ...but somehow I have a turbo, and my wife still loves me!!!!...hmmm.....its a mystery.Btw , is the Jetta a 1.8T???????yup it is. and that littlel thing is fun to drive. Its not powerful like a WRX, but still its packs a nice little punch.

[Evanshall]

the 1.8T is cool, id prefer a 2.8 VR6 engine if i knew more about its stability, realiability, it should be good for turboing, i would think a larger engine would be more stable and be able to put out more power, this might be were im proved wrong, but i though there was no replacement for displacement? plus ive heard modified VR6's they sound amazing, especially for a hatch

[Smokin' Rubber]

I disagree with the whole no replacement for displacement I think its all about engineering. (Wow I hate to bring this car up just cause I over do it all the time with the rest of my friends, but i have to admit it really is a testament to car engineering) The McLaren only has a 6 liter engine where (removed) several other cars have 6.0+ and yet the McLaren still generates more hp and tq and well as being a faster and more reliable car. To a certain point the displacement of an engine is a limiting factor but it should not be the center piece for hp like older american muscle cars were. They had giant engine with relatively low hp/displacement ratios. Anything above 10 hp/01. liter and NA is well engineered. I would say that a WRX has a well engineered engine because it has more than 10 hp per tenth of a liter but that is only due to the turbocharger. Without the turbo it really isn't that much better than any other engines, whereas our engine has no FI and is still 10/0.1.If only they made a 3 liter version of our engine lol that would be badass and would be soooooo loud when it hit lift

[Evanshall]

thats why i like the 2.8L VR6, is you ever hear the engine, it sounds amazing, ive played the sound for people before and ha dthem not watch the video of it racing around, i remember one person saying EVO and one Saying skyline(these werent car people but you get the point, it sounds like a good engine) as well its been turboed way in access of 300whp, my only problem is VW sometimes messes up on reliability, anyways good 1.8 is good enouph for this stage in my life , and its fun as hell! theres something mystical about 8000 RPMs, its addictive and i dont even have any mods, cant wait to hear it with intake or exhaust, i actually havt yet, not on the 2zz, so this will be a suprise for me when i do get it !and about the mclaren, i agree with you to a point, but 6 liters is still pretty damn big, thats like 350+ cubic inches, like imbetween a small block and a big block

[futseal04]

There is no replacement for displacement. Take a look at the quickest cars....funny cars or top fuel dragsters. They all use big block hemis. No four bangers....no trick technology.....just cubes and a blower. This ought to put it into perspective:* One Top Fuel dragster 500 cubic inch Hemi engine makes more horsepower than the first 4 rows at the Daytona 500.* Under full throttle, a dragster engine consumes 1-1/2 gallons of nitro methane per second; a fully loaded 747 consumes jet fuel at the same rate with 25% less energy being produced.* A stock Dodge Hemi V8 engine cannot produce enough power to drive the dragster supercharger.* With 3000 CFM of air being rammed in by the supercharger on overdrive, the fuel mixture is compressed into anear-solid form before ignition. Cylinders run on the verge of hydraulic lock at full throttle. * At the stoichiometric (stoichiometry methodology and technology by which quantities of reactants and products inchemical reactions are determined) 1.71 air/fuel mixture for nitro methane the flame front temperature measures 7050degrees F.* Nitro methane burns yellow. The spectacular white flame seen above the stacks at night is raw burning hydrogen,dissociated from atmospheric water vapor by the searing exhaust gases.* Dual magnetos supply 44 amps to each spark plug. This is the output of an arc welder in each cylinder.* Spark plug electrodes are totally consumed during a pass. After way, the engine is dieseling from compression plusthe glow of exhaust valves at 1400 degrees F. The engine can only be shut down by cutting the fuel flow.* If spark momentarily fails early in the run, unburned nitro builds up in the affected cylinders and then explodes withsufficient force to blow cylinder heads off the block in pieces or split the block in half.* In order to exceed 300 mph in 4.5 seconds dragsters must accelerate an average of over 4G's. In order to reach 200 mphwell before half-track, the launch acceleration approaches 8G's.* Dragsters reach over 300 miles per hour before you have completed reading this sentence.* Top Fuel Engines turn approximately 540 revolutions from light to light!* Including the burnout the engine must only survive 900 revolutions under load.* The redline is actually quite high at 9500rpm.* The Bottom Line; Assuming all the equipment is paid off, the crew worked for free, and for once NOTHING BLOWS UP, eachrun costs an estimated $1,000.00 per second. The current Top Fuel dragster elapsed time record is 4.441 seconds for thequarter mile (10/05/03, Tony Schumacher). The top speed record is 333.00 mph. (533 km/h) as measured over the last 66'of the run (09/28/03 Doug Kalitta).Putting all of this into perspective, you are driving the average $140,000 Lingenfelter "twin-turbo" powered Corvette Z06. Over a mile up the road, a Top Fuel dragster is staged and ready to launch down a quarter mile strip as you pass.You have the advantage of a flying start. You run the 'Vette hard up through the gears and blast across the startingline and past the dragster at an honest 200 mph.The 'tree' goes green for both of you at that moment. The dragster launches and starts after you. You keep your footdown hard, but you hear an incredibly brutal whine that sears your eardrums and within 3 seconds the dragster catchesand passes you. He beats you to the finish line, a quarter mile away from where you just passed him.Think about it, from a standing start, the dragster had spotted you 200 mph and not only caught, but nearly blasted youoff the road when he passed you within a mere 1320 foot long race course.That folks, is acceleration.

[drunkenmaxx]

ive seen that corvette comparison here somewhere before

[Smokin' Rubber]

Quote, originally posted by futseal04 »There is no replacement for displacement. Take a look at the quickest cars....funny cars or top fuel dragsters. They all use big block hemis. No four bangers....no trick technology.....just cubes and a blower. This ought to put it into perspective:* One Top Fuel dragster 500 cubic inch Hemi engine makes more horsepower than the first 4 rows at the Daytona 500.* Under full throttle, a dragster engine consumes 1-1/2 gallons of nitro methane per second; a fully loaded 747 consumes jet fuel at the same rate with 25% less energy being produced.* A stock Dodge Hemi V8 engine cannot produce enough power to drive the dragster supercharger.* With 3000 CFM of air being rammed in by the supercharger on overdrive, the fuel mixture is compressed into anear-solid form before ignition. Cylinders run on the verge of hydraulic lock at full throttle. * At the stoichiometric (stoichiometry methodology and technology by which quantities of reactants and products inchemical reactions are determined) 1.71 air/fuel mixture for nitro methane the flame front temperature measures 7050degrees F.* Nitro methane burns yellow. The spectacular white flame seen above the stacks at night is raw burning hydrogen,dissociated from atmospheric water vapor by the searing exhaust gases.* Dual magnetos supply 44 amps to each spark plug. This is the output of an arc welder in each cylinder.* Spark plug electrodes are totally consumed during a pass. After way, the engine is dieseling from compression plusthe glow of exhaust valves at 1400 degrees F. The engine can only be shut down by cutting the fuel flow.* If spark momentarily fails early in the run, unburned nitro builds up in the affected cylinders and then explodes withsufficient force to blow cylinder heads off the block in pieces or split the block in half.* In order to exceed 300 mph in 4.5 seconds dragsters must accelerate an average of over 4G's. In order to reach 200 mphwell before half-track, the launch acceleration approaches 8G's.* Dragsters reach over 300 miles per hour before you have completed reading this sentence.* Top Fuel Engines turn approximately 540 revolutions from light to light!* Including the burnout the engine must only survive 900 revolutions under load.* The redline is actually quite high at 9500rpm.* The Bottom Line; Assuming all the equipment is paid off, the crew worked for free, and for once NOTHING BLOWS UP, eachrun costs an estimated $1,000.00 per second. The current Top Fuel dragster elapsed time record is 4.441 seconds for thequarter mile (10/05/03, Tony Schumacher). The top speed record is 333.00 mph. (533 km/h) as measured over the last 66'of the run (09/28/03 Doug Kalitta).Putting all of this into perspective, you are driving the average $140,000 Lingenfelter "twin-turbo" powered Corvette Z06. Over a mile up the road, a Top Fuel dragster is staged and ready to launch down a quarter mile strip as you pass.You have the advantage of a flying start. You run the 'Vette hard up through the gears and blast across the startingline and past the dragster at an honest 200 mph.The 'tree' goes green for both of you at that moment. The dragster launches and starts after you. You keep your footdown hard, but you hear an incredibly brutal whine that sears your eardrums and within 3 seconds the dragster catchesand passes you. He beats you to the finish line, a quarter mile away from where you just passed him.Think about it, from a standing start, the dragster had spotted you 200 mph and not only caught, but nearly blasted youoff the road when he passed you within a mere 1320 foot long race course.That folks, is acceleration.Dude what the heck are you talking about you just proved my point not yours... Wow they use large big block hemis, ok I may give you thatBut, think of it this way. With out it being tricked out with 44 amp spark plugs, a super charger, nitro/methane octane gas, and everything else it is still just a crappy hemi. Not to mention the drag cars you are talking about have no body basically and nothing in them but frame, panels, engine, drivetrain, and exhaust.A McLaren with twin turbos, nitro/methane fuel fix, 44 amp spark plugs, all the amenities (like AC, radio, tool kits with gold wrenches, first aid kit, luggage space, and anything that is uneccesary for drag), none of the cat converters it has, no muffler, no intake restrictions, and all the other technology used by dragsters the McLaren would basically be just as fast. Think of it this way as well stock the McLaren has a top speed of 240, image what you could get the car to go with all the extra crap put on and useless crap taken off.And just to further prove my point...http://www.fast-autos.net/hks/hksracing180sx.htmlthat is a super modified drag Nissan 180SX, not quite sure of the room in the engine bay there but there is no way in hell it is as large as the large block hemi's you are talking about. Not sure what mods it has or what kind of fuel its on and yet even a smaller japanese built engine with heavy modification can pull 7.7 quarter miles

[futseal04]

The point is that there is no "new" technology here. No variable valve timing. Old style supercharger. Magnetos. 2 valves per cylinder. Pushrods. Hemi's are actually 1940's technology. (used in aircraft before Dodge adapted it for the Firedome engine in the early 50's). And superchargers are based off of an old GMC design dating back to the 30's (when they were driven right off of the crank and mounted in the front.)IF the mclaren engine could made to be faster, don't you think they would be using it? Fact of the matter is that those type of engines aren't durable enough for this application. (durable being a relative term....top fuel engines are rebuilt every run). Add this to the fact that no dyno can harness the power of one of these cars, so no one knows how much power they put out (although the supercharger alone takes about 750HP just to turn). Current estimates are over 5500HP.As for the 180SX specs, those are common numbers for Pro Street class draggers. they get into the sixes all the time with nothing but cubes. There are a couple of different classes (FI, NA, size, etc.). On that same website, a Lingenfelter Vette is almost as fast, costs less, and is more reliable than the 180. (And you can take it out on the street, has AC, radio, etc.)The Mclaren's claim to fame is high power (617) and low weight(2300 lbs). It was the first to use carbon fiber extensively. The BMW built engine is nice. The gold plated exhaust is pretty to look at. However, a Ford GT will match it in acceleration all the way through the 1/4. (both run low 11's). And the Ford does it with a truck V8 and supercharger. All this for 140k (vs. the F1's 1M if you could find one).Bottom line is this....the bigger an engine is, the more air/fuel it can burn. The more power it makes. This is simple physics. Hot Rod has a section on turbo basics. I know it is a turbo, but it will illustrate my point. There are graphs off to the side that talk about size, airflow, and max HP. As you will see, when size goes up, so does power. http://www.hotrod.com/techarti....htmlI'm not saying you cant use technology to make power. I'm just saying that to use a little engine to make power and think it can keep up with someone who has a big engine that makes power is like bringing a knife to a gun fight.

[Smokin' Rubber]

Quote, originally posted by futseal04 »I'm not saying you cant use technology to make power. I'm just saying that to use a little engine to make power and think it can keep up with someone who has a big engine that makes power is like bringing a knife to a gun fight.Lol wouldn't that be the kiss of deathI agree on the whole tricking the engine out with aftermarket parts that a larger engine would be better, but what I was mainly talking about is stock right of the production line which engine are better. As for the BMW engine in the McLaren not being able to take the pressure, voltsage, etc. might be true but if that is the case there are lots of ways to reinforce the engine and if you got enough money to buy the car in the first place then why not right? Oh and it runs the quarter in 6/10ths of a second faster than the Forg GT, accels to 100 in 2.5 seconds faster, and hits a topspeed of 50 mph faster (240 mph). And even then the car was built almost 8 years ago so its relatively old technology, so come on admit it the McLaren is a quality piece of engineering too and yes bigger engine are better if fully tricked outWow I just thought of something hilarious... make an I-10 engine with 2 liters of displacement so the piston heads are ridiculously small and crammed together. That would certainly be interesting

[Evanshall]

i seriesly think the V12 BMW engine in the Mclaren can take moremy dad used to work for GM, back in the early 90s around teh time of Pontiacs Feiro, they with Yamaha(HA qeuss who tuned the 2ZZ!!) made a 2.0 liter V8, yes V8whats the points?? well although you have slightly more inertia to put up with by a little extra weight, in actuality the engine is stronger, each piston has to do less work to get the same thing done, and the crank gets beat on alot less due to the 8 rods shoving it instead of just 4, so it could have been a realy aweosome mod engine, tobad they never realised itmy dad says it sounded very similar to a V8 like in any camero or mustang, just slightly higher toned, ill try to ask him what the car was they were gonna put it in

[rodzombie]

Quote, originally posted by futseal04 »There is no replacement for displacement. Take a look at the quickest cars....funny cars or top fuel dragsters. They all use big block hemis. No four bangers....no trick technology.....just cubes and a blower. This ought to put it into perspective:* One Top Fuel dragster 500 cubic inch Hemi engine makes more horsepower than the first 4 rows at the Daytona 500.* Under full throttle, a dragster engine consumes 1-1/2 gallons of nitro methane per second; a fully loaded 747 consumes jet fuel at the same rate with 25% less energy being produced.* A stock Dodge Hemi V8 engine cannot produce enough power to drive the dragster supercharger.* With 3000 CFM of air being rammed in by the supercharger on overdrive, the fuel mixture is compressed into anear-solid form before ignition. Cylinders run on the verge of hydraulic lock at full throttle. * At the stoichiometric (stoichiometry methodology and technology by which quantities of reactants and products inchemical reactions are determined) 1.71 air/fuel mixture for nitro methane the flame front temperature measures 7050degrees F.* Nitro methane burns yellow. The spectacular white flame seen above the stacks at night is raw burning hydrogen,dissociated from atmospheric water vapor by the searing exhaust gases.* Dual magnetos supply 44 amps to each spark plug. This is the output of an arc welder in each cylinder.* Spark plug electrodes are totally consumed during a pass. After way, the engine is dieseling from compression plusthe glow of exhaust valves at 1400 degrees F. The engine can only be shut down by cutting the fuel flow.* If spark momentarily fails early in the run, unburned nitro builds up in the affected cylinders and then explodes withsufficient force to blow cylinder heads off the block in pieces or split the block in half.* In order to exceed 300 mph in 4.5 seconds dragsters must accelerate an average of over 4G's. In order to reach 200 mphwell before half-track, the launch acceleration approaches 8G's.* Dragsters reach over 300 miles per hour before you have completed reading this sentence.* Top Fuel Engines turn approximately 540 revolutions from light to light!* Including the burnout the engine must only survive 900 revolutions under load.* The redline is actually quite high at 9500rpm.* The Bottom Line; Assuming all the equipment is paid off, the crew worked for free, and for once NOTHING BLOWS UP, eachrun costs an estimated $1,000.00 per second. The current Top Fuel dragster elapsed time record is 4.441 seconds for thequarter mile (10/05/03, Tony Schumacher). The top speed record is 333.00 mph. (533 km/h) as measured over the last 66'of the run (09/28/03 Doug Kalitta).Putting all of this into perspective, you are driving the average $140,000 Lingenfelter "twin-turbo" powered Corvette Z06. Over a mile up the road, a Top Fuel dragster is staged and ready to launch down a quarter mile strip as you pass.You have the advantage of a flying start. You run the 'Vette hard up through the gears and blast across the startingline and past the dragster at an honest 200 mph.The 'tree' goes green for both of you at that moment. The dragster launches and starts after you. You keep your footdown hard, but you hear an incredibly brutal whine that sears your eardrums and within 3 seconds the dragster catchesand passes you. He beats you to the finish line, a quarter mile away from where you just passed him.Think about it, from a standing start, the dragster had spotted you 200 mph and not only caught, but nearly blasted youoff the road when he passed you within a mere 1320 foot long race course.That folks, is acceleration.Your not really comparing apples to apples here. And your missing a very valid point and proving a point that you are trying to disprove. Technoligy is a replacement for displacement. Displacment has not made the top fuel dragsters faster, technoligy and engineering have. The top fuel engines have not gotten bigger, they have been 500 cubic inches for almost 2 decades. The technoligy and engineering has pushed the 500 cubic inch engines to the hights that there at now. Without the technoligy and advancments in cylinder head designs, fuel managment systems, light weight super strong alloys, and not to mention tire compounds, the likelyhood of the 500 cubic inch Keith Black style hemi going 330 miles per hour in 4.44 seconds would be slim to none. Also it's not fair to compare an engine for the street to a purpose built race engine. You must realize the engines in a top fuel dragster have nothing in comin with an original Dodge hemi. They share no comin parts, not the cylider block, not the cylinder heads, crank, cam, pistons connecting rods, nothing, they are two totally differant engines and no where near the same technoligy. The most common technoligys and upgrades used today to make more power from small 4 cylinder engines are changes to the fuel managment systems and forced induction. The newset and most common technoligys to be used on a top fuel hemis to make more power are also changes in fuel managment systems, super chargers, and cylinder heads. Technoligy is driving speed and power not size. Alot has changed since the muscle car era. No doubt that it's still easier and cheaper to make power with a larger engine. But technoligy has made it possible to build a smaller displacement engine with reliable, clean, usable power. Technoligies only down side is that it is not cheap until it becomes old, so you could say the only replacment for displacement is money!!!!

[Smokin' Rubber]

Quote, originally posted by rodzombie »Your not really comparing apples to apples here. And your missing a very valid point and proving a point that you are trying to disprove. Technoligy is a replacement for displacement. Displacment has not made the top fuel dragsters faster, technoligy and engineering have. The top fuel engines have not gotten bigger, they have been 500 cubic inches for almost 2 decades. The technoligy and engineering has pushed the 500 cubic inch engines to the hights that there at now. Without the technoligy and advancments in cylinder head designs, fuel managment systems, light weight super strong alloys, and not to mention tire compounds, the likelyhood of the 500 cubic inch Keith Black style hemi going 330 miles per hour in 4.44 seconds would be slim to none. Also it's not fair to compare an engine for the street to a purpose built race engine. You must realize the engines in a top fuel dragster have nothing in comin with an original Dodge hemi. They share no comin parts, not the cylider block, not the cylinder heads, crank, cam, pistons connecting rods, nothing, they are two totally differant engines and no where near the same technoligy. The most common technoligys and upgrades used today to make more power from small 4 cylinder engines are changes to the fuel managment systems and forced induction. The newset and most common technoligys to be used on a top fuel hemis to make more power are also changes in fuel managment systems, super chargers, and cylinder heads. Technoligy is driving speed and power not size. Alot has changed since the muscle car era. No doubt that it's still easier and cheaper to make power with a larger engine. But technoligy has made it possible to build a smaller displacement engine with reliable, clean, usable power. Technoligies only down side is that it is not cheap until it becomes old, so you could say the only replacment for displacement is money!!!! Thanks for explaining that a bit better than I did , thats really what I was trying to get at when I was replaying to his post as well

[drunkenmaxx]

i read that little list of fun facts in nov. http://forums.genvibe.com/zerothread?id=7106

[futseal04]

Quote, originally posted by rodzombie »Your not really comparing apples to apples here. And your missing a very valid point and proving a point that you are trying to disprove. Technoligy is a replacement for displacement. Displacment has not made the top fuel dragsters faster, technoligy and engineering have. The top fuel engines have not gotten bigger, they have been 500 cubic inches for almost 2 decades. The technoligy and engineering has pushed the 500 cubic inch engines to the hights that there at now. Without the technoligy and advancments in cylinder head designs, fuel managment systems, light weight super strong alloys, and not to mention tire compounds, the likelyhood of the 500 cubic inch Keith Black style hemi going 330 miles per hour in 4.44 seconds would be slim to none. Also it's not fair to compare an engine for the street to a purpose built race engine. You must realize the engines in a top fuel dragster have nothing in comin with an original Dodge hemi. They share no comin parts, not the cylider block, not the cylinder heads, crank, cam, pistons connecting rods, nothing, they are two totally differant engines and no where near the same technoligy. The most common technoligys and upgrades used today to make more power from small 4 cylinder engines are changes to the fuel managment systems and forced induction. The newset and most common technoligys to be used on a top fuel hemis to make more power are also changes in fuel managment systems, super chargers, and cylinder heads. Technoligy is driving speed and power not size. Alot has changed since the muscle car era. No doubt that it's still easier and cheaper to make power with a larger engine. But technoligy has made it possible to build a smaller displacement engine with reliable, clean, usable power. Technoligies only down side is that it is not cheap until it becomes old, so you could say the only replacment for displacement is money!!!! Actually, I am comparing apples to apples here. While top-fuel motors do not share common components, they DO share common design philosphies. Are the pistons the same? No, but they are designed on the same principle. Same is true for any component that you wish to name. Using new materials is not new technology, it is merely a new vessel for old technology. This is like saying that moving the engine from in front of the driver to behind is new technology.And FYI, dragsters use a variation of the late 60's "wedge" engine, which is not a "true" hemi. The last true hemis (the 391) were produced in the early 60's and are more common in marine applications.Here you have to distinguish between "technology" and "advancements." Putting higher flowing heads is not "technology," it is merely optimizing current tech. Applying variable valve timing on a pushrod engine is (upcoming on the C6 corvette Z06) new tech. There will always be 2 camps, size vs. tech. However, you have to keep things consistent. So if the tech camp is going to say that blowers are the way to go, then they must be prepared when the bigger is better crowd uses one too.Bottom line is....all things equal, you cannot make a small engine as powerful as a big one. Period. Technology may rewrite the way we do things, but it cannot rewrite physics.

[Smokin' Rubber]

Quote, originally posted by futseal04 »Technology may rewrite the way we do things, but it cannot rewrite physics.Actually.... lol In a few years the Standard Model, which is the basis of physics today, will be changed in all likelihood.-btw this is the defenition of technology incase you were wonderingMain Entry: tech·nol·o·gy Pronunciation: -jEFunction: nounInflected Form(s): plural -giesEtymology: Greek technologia systematic treatment of an art, from technE art, skill + -o- + -logia -logy1 a : the practical application of knowledge especially in a particular area : ENGINEERING 2 b : a capability given by the practical application of knowledge 2 : a manner of accomplishing a task especially using technical processes, methods, or knowledge -this is the definition of advancementMain Entry: ad·vance·ment Pronunciation: &d-'van(t)-sm&ntFunction: noun1 : the action of advancing : the state of being advanced : a : promotion or elevation to a higher rank or position b : progression to a higher stage of development2 : an improved feature : IMPROVEMENT Ok lets see now.... doesn't this mean that technology is what leads to advancement....You still aren't understanding our arguement here futseal. You cannot seem to seperate the difference yourself.... one one side you have technology which means I could have a little four banger with every single modification imaginable and on the other side I have a really big (removed) 6 liter stock engine NO MODIFICATIONS because modifications are "advancements" and advancements means some form of new technology (and yes using new material is considered new technology because in order to obtain the new material and process it requires different ways than what may have been previously used making it new technology). Which do you think would win in a drag situation? The tricked out 4 banger with 600 hp or the 6 liter engine which would be lucky to hit 540 hp? I would think the answer would be obvious but some may disagree.The whole point of this is that yes large engine have more POTENTIAL... BUT... if it was pure technology over pure displacement technology would win out and even then this discussion is a bit odd considering the fact that an engine itself is technology and that technically the birth of larger engines was new engineering and designing and therefore new technology. Then again we are basically talking about the hemi or wedge of today/the 60's VS a super tricked out smaller engine with all the new technology today.