There's some serious rose colored glasses going on here...
But why do you think we are seeing so much more failure with tuned, modern engines, that should be better engineered and manufactured (than their counterparts from 10 years ago)?
A Corvette from 2003 had 350hp. Corvettes have a
hundred more now. I don't care what you want to "unlock" with a tune - you'll never get a hundred more to equal it. So right off the bat, both being equal, cars of today make MORE power MORE reliably than those from a decade ago - I've
never seen power gains without nuking driveline components like we have today except for things like the SVT/Cobra/Lightning.
Like LT1's that blow transmission output shafts at 400whp, ten bolt rear ends that nuke on a -stock- engine, pistons getting holes running lean just on like a basic cam or if you boost it it flies apart at 4# or 6# of boost. The LS1? Those things had the same glass rear end, same output shaft problems. Chassis was a wet noodle. Want to break 500hp? Rebuild the shortblock, get the T56 output shaft off the Viper, get a 12 bolt - or you're just playing roulette.
A great example? The transmission in the 5th gen Camaro is rated to handle 600tq. The T56 from ten years ago? A measly 350tq!
Just look over at ls1crap, all the threads about people finding extra power here and there in the tune. Free power that the manufacturer locked up. Why do you think they lock up that power?
I don't know of *any* guys with an LS_ series engine that blew my mind with horsepower increases without intake/exhaust/cams/heads/tune or boost except for the LS7 - and those guys nuked their engines. Most of the LT1/LS1 guys (myself included) nuked plenty of rear ends and transmissions just playing with mild horsepower gains. Most guys with the L67 or LS4 nuked their transmission on a -stock- engine before 100k. I saw plenty of blown differential housings where the solution was ordering a new $900 outer casing. Modded they ALL required a rebuild of the driveline. It's not like ten years ago was any better than today.
Heck, had a later year HHR SS or Cobalt SS? A Posi diff and Brembo brake upgrade was $495 when you order the car! Find me a posi upgrade for that cheap anywhere - that was a GREAT upgrade that didn't exist in 2003.
Name cars that can
literally double the stock output of the engine and not tear the rest of the driveline apart in relatively short order on a decent sample set. I can think of the old 4G63 DSM (which would still eat CV joints for lunch), the WRX guys (same problem). Guys with LNFs put out 400hp to the wheels. The ATS is getting similar outputs. The GT500 of a few years ago can see over 50% increases in power on the stock bottom end.
Going from 400hp to 450hp maybe a 50hp gain, but it's just over a 10% gain. Going from 200whp to 250whp is the same gain, but its a 25% improvement. 25% margins really didn't exist ten years ago - and you cant get gains like that from tunes only on N/A engines. Heck, you needed a LOT more than a tune to do that in the 90s on boosted engines as well - the ECU didn't have control of the wastegate back then, so it required large numbers of mods to break big numbers.
Or the early 90s Supra guys. Want to get to 300hp? Easy. 400hp? Swap turbo, intercooler, downpipe, intercooler piping, exhaust... No magic "tune only" to gain
a hundred horsepower like the ATS can today.
JFJr said:
Why wouldn't a n/a V8 (with more displacement) be quicker around a challenging track than a TTV6?
Then why aren't all Rally cars small 400hp V8s as opposed to 400hp turbo 4s? The weight of the driveline is roughly the same and you don't need to worry about airflow to the intercooler at low speeds. Realistically, a boosted engine with good midrange (ie not 800hp supras) has better midrange power than an equivalent N/A engine around a course as long as you engineer your cooling system properly.
F1 went to smaller boosted engines to make
more power and be faster around the same tracks...
Regardless, on a race course, your gears are
WAY more important than how your engine makes its power. As long as you can keep in powerband (or in boost) you're better off - the problem is when you get to the point of a slower turn needing two downshifts (or three) instead of one, you slide out of powerband on a N/A engine - meanwhile the turbo engine with a blip of the sequential gearbox is still in boost and making maximum power. On a street car doing track duty when you don't have a close-ratio sequential, a 500HP turbo V6 just has better midrange torque than a 500HP N/A V8 to get you up and out of the corner and back out the straights. But better gearing will win the day.
We live in an era where cars make more power from the factory than any year before. More cars get modded and have higher gains than ever before (either total power or percentage).
A stock Z28 Camaro in 1995 made similar wheel horspower to a 2013 ATS. Want to bring both to 350whp? The ATS needs JUST a tune and a downpipe. Camaro? Intake. Throttle body. Cam. Rockers. Headers. High flow cats. Exhaust. Tune.
Want 500whp? ATS? Add a turbo swap, intercooler, and an intake. Camaro? Get a big sheet of paper. I had to rebuild my whole bottom end and add boost or go to a 383/396 (which again, means a whole rebuild and new rotating assembly).
There's no question. 2013 is a WAY better year to 2003.
That's sorta my point.