No Replacement for Displacement
No Replacement for Displacement
Author
Discussion

Negative Creep

Original Poster:

26,116 posts

257 months

Sunday 16th May 2010
quotequote all
Bought myself a Ford Falcon the other day, which comes with a 4.1 producing a mighty 133bhp as standard. So that gives me 25.12 bhp/litre


Can anyone boast a lower claim than that?

pugwash4x4

7,682 posts

251 months

Sunday 16th May 2010
quotequote all
wow that's bad- had an original landrover series V8 (a stage 1 V8). That had 89bhp from 3.5 litres which i thought was properly rubbish- but thats 25.4bhp/l, and with the restrictors removed it made 110bhp easily.

XG332

3,927 posts

218 months

Sunday 16th May 2010
quotequote all
My Swift rally car produced 52hp when new with its 993cc engine. I win bounce

_rubinho_

1,237 posts

213 months

Sunday 16th May 2010
quotequote all
XG332 said:
My Swift rally car produced 52hp when new with its 993cc engine. I win bounce
Err, that's 52.4bhp/l meaning your figure is twice the OP's. No win!

Lefty 200 Drams

21,489 posts

232 months

Sunday 16th May 2010
quotequote all
U1000 unımog, 5.7 lıtre, 100bhp.

Edited by Lefty 200 Drams on Sunday 16th May 09:41

XitUp

7,690 posts

234 months

Sunday 16th May 2010
quotequote all
XG332 said:
My Swift rally car produced 52hp when new with its 993cc engine. I win bounce
No you don't.

Some of the old non turbo diesel V8s from American trucks have got to be up there, figures like 130bhp from a 6.2.

Negative Creep

Original Poster:

26,116 posts

257 months

Sunday 16th May 2010
quotequote all
Although having said that, I do have 234 ft/lbs of torque. This means the mid range performance is very strong and in real world driving - *thunk* sleep

XG332

3,927 posts

218 months

Sunday 16th May 2010
quotequote all
i was implying the opposite, never mind.

XitUp

7,690 posts

234 months

Sunday 16th May 2010
quotequote all
XG332 said:
i was implying the opposite, never mind.
But it's not got a high hp/ltr figure either...

Am I missing something?

singlecoil

35,834 posts

276 months

Sunday 16th May 2010
quotequote all
XitUp said:
XG332 said:
i was implying the opposite, never mind.
But it's not got a high hp/ltr figure either...

Am I missing something?
I don't get it either

vit4

3,507 posts

200 months

Sunday 16th May 2010
quotequote all
XitUp said:
Some of the old non turbo diesel V8s from American trucks have got to be up there, figures like 130bhp from a 6.2.
Holy cow eek 20.97 hp/litre

I thought mine was bad at 42 hp/litre rolleyes (59bhp, 1.4)

Lefty 200 Drams

21,489 posts

232 months

Sunday 16th May 2010
quotequote all
Weren't some of the non-supercharged merlın engınes somethıng lıke 400bhp from 27 lıtres?

15bhp/lıtre!

anonymous-user

84 months

Sunday 16th May 2010
quotequote all
Negative Creep said:
Bought myself a Ford Falcon the other day, which comes with a 4.1 producing a mighty 133bhp as standard. So that gives me 25.12 bhp/litre


Can anyone boast a lower claim than that?
Dear God. 25HP/litre....I think a Suffolk Punch delivers more than that biggrin

james_gt3rs

4,816 posts

221 months

Sunday 16th May 2010
quotequote all
Negative Creep said:
Bought myself a Ford Falcon the other day, which comes with a 4.1 producing a mighty 133bhp as standard. So that gives me 25.12 bhp/litre


Can anyone boast a lower claim than that?
Is there something wrong with it, or did it really come from the factory with that?!

XitUp

7,690 posts

234 months

Sunday 16th May 2010
quotequote all
Lefty 200 Drams said:
Weren't some of the non-supercharged merlın engınes somethıng lıke 400bhp from 27 lıtres?

15bhp/lıtre!
Well if we're moving away from road vehicles, the most powerful ICE in the world makes about 4.5bhp/ltr.

300bhp/ton

41,030 posts

220 months

Sunday 16th May 2010
quotequote all
Negative Creep said:
Bought myself a Ford Falcon the other day, which comes with a 4.1 producing a mighty 133bhp as standard. So that gives me 25.12 bhp/litre


Can anyone boast a lower claim than that?
best I can muster is 2.5 nad with 67hp, or 26.8bhp/litre biggrin