| Author | Topic |
|---|
I supported Toymods
Location:
melbourne
Registered:
June 2002
|
|
Re: Is 5 valve better than 4 valve?
|
Tue, 07 June 2005 03:03
 
|
 |
|
re: the land speed record contender, from memory the dude built that car primarily to be used with a turbo, but will run it without as well, to let kids drive it or something.
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
June 2002
|
|
Re: Is 5 valve better than 4 valve?
|
Tue, 07 June 2005 03:19
|
|
Bill,
Any idea of the diameter and length of the header primaries on that 249hp engine?
Cheers,
Julian
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane / Gold Coast
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Is 5 valve better than 4 valve?
|
Tue, 07 June 2005 03:34
|
|
| jkvsnn wrote on Tue, 07 June 2005 13:19 |
Bill,
Any idea of the diameter and length of the header primaries on that 249hp engine?
Cheers,
Julian
|
I don't know, but the ones on the FE I'm building are 1 5/8" OD and somewhat longer than you'd normally expect to use. The ones in the pic look much like that to me.
|
|
|
Registered:
June 2002
|
|
Re: Is 5 valve better than 4 valve?
|
Tue, 07 June 2005 04:13
|
|
| 4agte wrote on Mon, 06 June 2005 20:10 |
i doubt that has anything to do with it
edit: its not like they just whack any old 4age into a sprinter these things rev way past the factory rev limit i wouldnt be supprised if they reved to 9-10k by the sounds of it and they werent particularly caring about their engine internals considering they didnt have any air filters and then you add to the fact that they are competing against 500ps silvias and skylines i doubt they were internally standard or anywhere near standard.
They were also considerably slower drifting as they were constantly getting passed by more powerfull cars kinda sad really
|
I didn't say anything about them being standard, or whacking any old motor in. More that beginning with a cheaper engine, with cheaper parts to build it, would be a logical way to go in drifting where engine longevity isn't going to be long at all.
|
|
|
Location:
Adelaide, SA
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Is 5 valve better than 4 valve?
|
Tue, 07 June 2005 05:52
|
|
I think that 170bhp's name calling, tanty throwing, whinging, continual self referencing of his (hers?) mechanical abilities and dogmatic belief in his own engine choice has proven to me that the 20V is the greatest and best of all engines ever in the universe....
Well, of all girly 1600 4 cyl engines anyway 
What a carry on about a bloody 4AG.
|
|
|
Membership Secretary
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
June 2002
|
|
Re: Is 5 valve better than 4 valve?
|
Wed, 08 June 2005 06:24
|
|
This thread has been moderated a little.
Posts have been removed that contained personal attacks and foul language.
|
|
|
Location:
Vancouver
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: Is 5 valve better than 4 valve?
|
Thu, 09 June 2005 19:48
|
|
yeah, of all the fossil fuel burning 1600cc motors that were ever put into cushy passenger cars, I understand I must like the 5-valve 4AG motor the bestest of all. I'm glad that was clarified so much.
Bill Sherwood, sorry man, you're just going to have to accept the facts and toss that junk-heap F-series motor into the ground because you don't have an SAE paper to back up how good you say it might be.
Too bad I am building up a 2000cc motor that will make more torque than a 5-valve ever will - what in God's name was I thinking?!? I sure wish I read this posting before I committed to the other motor...
|
|
|
Location:
Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Japan
Registered:
January 2003
|
|
Re: Is 5 valve better than 4 valve?
|
Fri, 10 June 2005 01:50
|
|
| lumpy wrote on Tue, 07 June 2005 15:52 |
Well, of all girly 1600 4 cyl engines anyway
What a carry on about a bloody 4AG.
|
BWUAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHA
heh heh, zactly.. no matter what you do.. or no matter how many rpm you turn.... it's still only a baby 1.6L  
Cya, Stewart
|
|
|
Location:
Adelaide
Registered:
May 2003
|
|
Re: Is 5 valve better than 4 valve?
|
Fri, 10 June 2005 04:23
|
|
Dare we say anything about your baby K engines Stew?
*cough* 1.1-1.3L *cough*
|
|
|
Location:
Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Japan
Registered:
January 2003
|
|
Re: Is 5 valve better than 4 valve?
|
Fri, 10 June 2005 04:57
|
|
| takai wrote on Fri, 10 June 2005 14:23 |
Dare we say anything about your baby K engines Stew?
*cough* 1.1-1.3L *cough*
|
wellllll, you could but it's not gonna get you anywhere...
a well worked 4K will kick the arse of any crappy 20valve  heh heh
get that up ya's
|
|
|
Location:
nelson, new zealand
Registered:
October 2004
|
|
Re: Is 5 valve better than 4 valve?
|
Fri, 10 June 2005 05:49
|
|
shouldnt that be a well worked 4k will ALMOST keep up with a 20v?
|
|
|
Location:
Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Japan
Registered:
January 2003
|
|
Re: Is 5 valve better than 4 valve?
|
Fri, 10 June 2005 06:21
|
|
| Mr Revhead wrote on Fri, 10 June 2005 15:49 |
shouldnt that be a well worked 4k will ALMOST keep up with a 20v?
|
see.. that depends....
if the 20V is in a 970kg sprinter or AE82....
and the 4K is in a 700kg KE15....
or the 4K is in a 400kg 1300 class clubman....
you get the idea
and i was just stirring
|
|
|
Location:
nelson, new zealand
Registered:
October 2004
|
|
Re: Is 5 valve better than 4 valve?
|
Fri, 10 June 2005 07:02
|
|
me too 
|
|
|
Location:
Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Japan
Registered:
January 2003
|
|
Re: Is 5 valve better than 4 valve?
|
Fri, 10 June 2005 07:24
|
|
bah, let's just say it out loud...
AE86 (not KE15) sprinters suck, and 4AGE's bite hairy dogs balls......
heh heh, 5valve vs 4 valve.... if there was a definitive answer... every race team and (performance) manufacturer would be doing the same thing.. the 20V is still an econobox motor, just has slightly longer legs than a stock 16v
|
|
|
