Most powerful 4 cylinder 16v engine without VVT

Most powerful 4 cylinder 16v engine without VVT

Author
Discussion

tr7v8

7,185 posts

227 months

Monday 27th August 2012
quotequote all
neiljohnson said:
tr7v8 said:
944 was not variable cam timing & was 211BHP, 968 had vario cam & was 240BHP.
The 944 varies the cam timing by adjusting the tension on the timing chain tensioner it's a primitive way of doing it but is variable
Nope it is fixed on a 944 16V, variable only on the 968, all the tensioners do is tension the cam chain:-
The 968 was powered by an updated version of the 944's straight-4 engine, now displacing 3.0 L with 104 mm bore, 88 mm stroke and producing 240 PS (236 hp/177 kW). Changes to the 968's powertrain also included the addition of Porsche's then-new VarioCam variable valve timing system, newly optimized induction and exhaust systems, a dual-mass flywheel, and updated engine management electronics among other more minor revisions.

mjb1

2,552 posts

158 months

Saturday 1st September 2012
quotequote all
Toyota 3s-ge in the ST202 celica/late mk2 mr2 is 173bhp. Pretty good for it's day, and a bombproof engine.

HowlerMonkey

106 posts

168 months

Thursday 6th September 2012
quotequote all
The Quad4 in the w41 version of the "Quad 442" made 190hp from 2.3 liters in 1989.

Johnboy Mac

2,666 posts

177 months

Thursday 6th September 2012
quotequote all
davepoth said:
E30 BMW 320iS was a tax class special for Italy and Spain (there was a massive tax jump for cars over 2 litres). It was basically an E30 M3 with a 1990cc destroked engine, and made 189hp at 6900 rpm, or 94.97 bhp/litre.
Close but no cigar! wink

Both the Merc 190E EVOII & the BMW E30 M3 Evo Sport were over 95bhp/litre.

stevesingo

4,848 posts

221 months

Thursday 6th September 2012
quotequote all
OP did post (#3) 2.0lt or below. In which case I think as far as unmodified production engines go the BMW 320iS wins it. Unmodified would be difficult to predict, but the Caterham JPE Vauxhall would be a good bar to set for a start.


Johnboy Mac

2,666 posts

177 months

Thursday 6th September 2012
quotequote all
stevesi:Dgo said:
OP did post (#3) 2.0lt or below. In which case I think as far as unmodified production engines go the BMW 320iS wins it. Unmodified would be difficult to predict, but the Caterham JPE Vauxhall would be a good bar to set for a start.
Ah, didn't notice it was changed to 2.0lt. Anyway, I'm incorrect now on two counts. After converting PS to BHP the Evo II has 94.2bhp/litre & the Evo Sport has 95.3bhp/litre. So, the E30 320iS is as already previously stated by davepoth a clear winner. No cigar for me biggrin

Keesjr

57 posts

145 months

Monday 15th October 2012
quotequote all
Evoluzione said:
I think you need to break it down to bhp/litre, I don't know how big a Xu10j4rs is.
An XU10J4RS is 1998 cc's
The old Mi16 is 1905 and 160bhp in non-cat form.

Robmarriott

2,633 posts

157 months

Tuesday 16th October 2012
quotequote all
How can Caterham engines count but btcc ones don't? They're hardly a production engine, they're heavily modified!

eliotrw

Original Poster:

302 posts

168 months

Tuesday 16th October 2012
quotequote all
I dont think they either tongue out
320is engine is mighty impressive then.
Then again its hard to think of another na 2 litre with that much development!

RizzoTheRat

25,083 posts

191 months

Thursday 18th October 2012
quotequote all
Hayabusa is supposedly 194 bhp at the crank, so a shade under 150hhp/litre. I think on unmodified power per litre the bike engines are usualy going to win as they're built for high rev power rather than the torque that usually needed to propel a heavier car.

Pumaracing

2,089 posts

206 months

Thursday 18th October 2012
quotequote all
Here we go again. You don't "need" any more torque to propel a heavy vehicle than a light one! You need power and gearing which is what gives axle torque in the first place.

RizzoTheRat

25,083 posts

191 months

Thursday 18th October 2012
quotequote all
Fair point, however bike engines tend to be high revving low torque compared to car engines, whcih tend to be high revving and low torque compared to truck engines. I guess the longer life expectancy of car engines plays a part too, but unless you want hundreds of gears or to be replacing the clutch every few thousand miles, you want some torque from the engine.

Pumaracing

2,089 posts

206 months

Thursday 18th October 2012
quotequote all
RizzoTheRat said:
Fair point, however bike engines tend to be high revving low torque compared to car engines, whcih tend to be high revving and low torque compared to truck engines.
No they don't. Bike engines have more torque per litre than car ones and car ones more per litre than truck ones. You're confusing absolute torque and torque per litre. Absolute torque is a function of engine size and that is irrelevant in determining how "good" an engine is in relative terms.

Diesel engines don't even have a good spread of torque compared to petrol ones despite people forever banging on about how torquey they are. That's why they need so many gear ratios to drive anything properly.

stevesingo

4,848 posts

221 months

Thursday 18th October 2012
quotequote all
Just for interest the 2lt BMW S14 has 151 lb/ft, so 75.5 lb/ft per litre. Not bad for 1987-89.

Pumaracing

2,089 posts

206 months

Thursday 18th October 2012
quotequote all
stevesingo said:
Just for interest the 2lt BMW S14 has 151 lb/ft, so 75.5 lb/ft per litre. Not bad for 1987-89.
You'd give your right bk for that much torque per litre just now - lol.

stevesingo

4,848 posts

221 months

Thursday 18th October 2012
quotequote all
Damn Right, ha ha.

Don't rub it in confused

mat777

10,360 posts

159 months

Tuesday 23rd October 2012
quotequote all
If we're ignoring capacity limit, then I'd mention the engine in the Fiat Mephistopheles GP car. An 18.7 litre 4-cyl nicked from their production aeroplanes, it made something over 200hp before all the pistons made a bid for freedom through the bonnet and it was replaced with a 6-cyl