V6, V8, V10,V12,V16 ?

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: BullyCanadian
"Theres no replacement for displacement."

That is the only thing I have to say, take it for its worth.

Yeah, those early 80s turbocharged F1 cars were woefully underpowered...:roll:

 

[FrustratedUser]

Originally posted by: Silversierra
Imagine how many intake exhause ports you could fit on a huge diameter cylinder though, 6, 8 of each? Massive airflow lol. 64valve inline 4 lol.

Ha yeah, try design the damn thing and report back.

 

[Silversierra]

Yeah that would be a nightmare having tons of ports. I wasn't actually serious, I just think it's funny that they just keep adding ports to cylinders. I mean why use 2 intake 2 exhaust? Couldn't you have one each and make them bigger if you need more airflow?

 

[DingDingDao]

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser

Originally posted by: DingDingDao

Originally posted by: clarkey01
How come the Mclaren F1 from 12 years ago (top speed 242 mph) is still one of the fastest cars ever ? how come the enzo only does 218 mph ? is it cost ?

Gearing, I think. I'd be willing to bet that when you get to the top of the tach in top gear (7th in the Enzo, I believe), the engine would probably still have more to give.

Wrong. Cost and reliability. The Enzo is made to last longer than a F1 engine. The engine in an Enzo also does not rev up to 19000 rpm.
Never ever compare a racing engine to a production engine.... ever.

I agree with you regarding reliability, but your point about revs is kind of what I was getting at. The Enzo revs to, what, 8000 rpm maybe? In order to get the car out to 250mph in seven gears, you'd have to make every gear taller, plus adjust your final drive, to get the car there. The sacrifice for that would be acceleration, which is the other big selling point. I figure it could get to 250, but it would take some of the quickness out of the car. Kind of have to find a nice balance between the two, right?

 

[FrustratedUser]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: BullyCanadian
"Theres no replacement for displacement."

That is the only thing I have to say, take it for its worth.

Yeah, those early 80s turbocharged F1 cars were woefully underpowered...:roll:

There is still some truth in that.
6 liter V8 + 25psi boost is still > 4 liter V8 + 25 psi boost.
Assuming the smaller V8 is not revving to 19000 rpm and using ultra exotic materials and the 6l V8 is a cast iron push rod big block.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: DingDingDao

Originally posted by: Silversierra
I mean why not use a 4 cyl or 6 cyl with high displacement. I mean someone could make a 8.0 Liter 4 cylinder. Then because of size it would weigh less and fit in a smaller car. I know farm tractors are almost all 4 and 6 cylinder engines, 8 cyl is very rare. They just put big pistons in the 4 and 6 cyl. engines to get higher displacement.

:shocked:

Think about how big the cylinders would be, the pistons, rods, etc. etc. I think unless you could forge those parts out of something very, VERY strong, that engine would destroy itself very quickly.

It wouldn't destroy itself quickly, because as you said they'd make the pistons, rods, etc. much thicker and stronger. It would be rough, too, which is mainly the reason that they don't do that. My friend's truck has a 12 liter inline 6. Only makes around 350 hp, but has about 1,200 lbs of torque, and it can pull the big loads for hundreds of thousands, or even millions of miles.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser

Originally posted by: DingDingDao

Originally posted by: clarkey01
How come the Mclaren F1 from 12 years ago (top speed 242 mph) is still one of the fastest cars ever ? how come the enzo only does 218 mph ? is it cost ?

Gearing, I think. I'd be willing to bet that when you get to the top of the tach in top gear (7th in the Enzo, I believe), the engine would probably still have more to give.

Wrong. Cost and reliability. The Enzo is made to last longer than a F1 engine. The engine in an Enzo also does not rev up to 19000 rpm.
Never ever compare a racing engine to a production engine.... ever.

Yeah, how many miles can you drive the McLaren F1 between engine rebuilds? One or two thousand, tops?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Silversierra
Yeah that would be a nightmare having tons of ports. I wasn't actually serious, I just think it's funny that they just keep adding ports to cylinders. I mean why use 2 intake 2 exhaust? Couldn't you have one each and make them bigger if you need more airflow?

Why did Chrysler create the Hemi? For more efficient combustion, right? That's the same reason we have 4 valve engines.

 

[Chadder007]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser

Originally posted by: DingDingDao

Originally posted by: clarkey01
How come the Mclaren F1 from 12 years ago (top speed 242 mph) is still one of the fastest cars ever ? how come the enzo only does 218 mph ? is it cost ?

Gearing, I think. I'd be willing to bet that when you get to the top of the tach in top gear (7th in the Enzo, I believe), the engine would probably still have more to give.

Wrong. Cost and reliability. The Enzo is made to last longer than a F1 engine. The engine in an Enzo also does not rev up to 19000 rpm.
Never ever compare a racing engine to a production engine.... ever.

Yeah, how many miles can you drive the McLaren F1 between engine rebuilds? One or two thousand, tops?

They were some of the most reliable engines in a car of that type.....so no. They could race seasons using those engines without a rebuild.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: Vic
Why did Chrysler create the Hemi?

To vastly increase the Hick marketshare.

- M4H

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: BullyCanadian
"Theres no replacement for displacement."

That is the only thing I have to say, take it for its worth.

Yeah, those early 80s turbocharged F1 cars were woefully underpowered...:roll:

There is still some truth in that.
6 liter V8 + 25psi boost is still > 4 liter V8 + 25 psi boost.
Assuming the smaller V8 is not revving to 19000 rpm and using ultra exotic materials and the 6l V8 is a cast iron push rod big block.

Fact remains that the early 80s turbo powered F1 cars were the most powerful engines ever in an F1 car. Turbocharged 4 cylinder engine making over 1000hp.

 

[FrustratedUser]

Originally posted by: DingDingDao

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser

Originally posted by: DingDingDao

Originally posted by: clarkey01
How come the Mclaren F1 from 12 years ago (top speed 242 mph) is still one of the fastest cars ever ? how come the enzo only does 218 mph ? is it cost ?

Gearing, I think. I'd be willing to bet that when you get to the top of the tach in top gear (7th in the Enzo, I believe), the engine would probably still have more to give.

Wrong. Cost and reliability. The Enzo is made to last longer than a F1 engine. The engine in an Enzo also does not rev up to 19000 rpm.
Never ever compare a racing engine to a production engine.... ever.

I agree with you regarding reliability, but your point about revs is kind of what I was getting at. The Enzo revs to, what, 8000 rpm maybe? In order to get the car out to 250mph in seven gears, you'd have to make every gear taller, plus adjust your final drive, to get the car there. The sacrifice for that would be acceleration, which is the other big selling point. I figure it could get to 250, but it would take some of the quickness out of the car. Kind of have to find a nice balance between the two, right?

The F1 has 900+ hp, the Enzo doesn't. It's that easy. Sure the Enzo might be able to reach 250mph but it will take longer.

The point is, to get 900+ hp at 8000 rpm you need more displacement. It all boils down to how much air and fuel can be pumped through the engine.

Crude example:

3liter V10 at 19000rpm ---> 300cc / cyl. For a 4 stroke it means it pumps 300cc every 2 revolutions ---> 2400 liters / cyl each minute ---> 24000 liters in all 10 cyl is going through the engine each minute

A V10 at 8000rpm needs to be able to pump the same amount of air in a minute to have a change of matching the fomer in power.
2400liters = X * 4000 ---> X = 0.6liter ---> You need a 6liter V10 to be able to match.

This is not the complete truth but part of it. My 0.67 cui nitro engine makes close to 6hp at 28000 rpm (using 50% nitro + 50% methanol blend).

 

[FrustratedUser]

Originally posted by: Chadder007

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser

Originally posted by: DingDingDao

Originally posted by: clarkey01
How come the Mclaren F1 from 12 years ago (top speed 242 mph) is still one of the fastest cars ever ? how come the enzo only does 218 mph ? is it cost ?

Gearing, I think. I'd be willing to bet that when you get to the top of the tach in top gear (7th in the Enzo, I believe), the engine would probably still have more to give.

Wrong. Cost and reliability. The Enzo is made to last longer than a F1 engine. The engine in an Enzo also does not rev up to 19000 rpm.
Never ever compare a racing engine to a production engine.... ever.

Yeah, how many miles can you drive the McLaren F1 between engine rebuilds? One or two thousand, tops?

They were some of the most reliable engines in a car of that type.....so no. They could race seasons using those engines without a rebuild.

NO!
Please send me some of the stuff you are smoking.

 

[FrustratedUser]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: BullyCanadian
"Theres no replacement for displacement."

That is the only thing I have to say, take it for its worth.

Yeah, those early 80s turbocharged F1 cars were woefully underpowered...:roll:

There is still some truth in that.
6 liter V8 + 25psi boost is still > 4 liter V8 + 25 psi boost.
Assuming the smaller V8 is not revving to 19000 rpm and using ultra exotic materials and the 6l V8 is a cast iron push rod big block.

Fact remains that the early 80s turbo powered F1 cars were the most powerful engines ever in an F1 car. Turbocharged 4 cylinder engine making over 1000hp.

I'm not arguing about that. 1500hp from 1500cc = awesome.

 

[J Heartless Slick]

Originally posted by: tokamak
There's got to be some good reason why Top Fuel dragsters (specifically built for maximum acceleration) use V-8's as opposed to something bigger. Maybe after 8 cylinders, the weight increase overshadows the horsepower gain for a strictly acceleration application...?

Big time drag racing started in the US where the V8 is king.

 

[91TTZ]

I don't know why people get hung up on this stuff. It isn't that hard to understand once you learn the fundamentals. It is basic math and physics.

Forget about the engine configuration because that doesn't have much to do with it. A 5 liter inline 4 would make the same power as a 5 liter V12. That's because engine configuration is not one of the parameters in the formula of engine Hp. Different configs like V12's are used for comfort, since it would be a balanced engine config and wouldn't feel rough to the driver. For purpose-specific applications where comfort isn't one of the design considerations, you DO see "strange" configurations like 12 liter inline 6's. It isn't the smoothest thing but it gets the job done.

 

[FrustratedUser]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
I don't know why people get hung up on this stuff. It isn't that hard to understand once you learn the fundamentals. It is basic math and physics.

Forget about the engine configuration because that doesn't have much to do with it. A 5 liter inline 4 would make the same power as a 5 liter V12. That's because engine configuration is not one of the parameters in the formula of engine Hp. Different configs like V12's are used for comfort, since it would be a balanced engine config and wouldn't feel rough to the driver. For purpose-specific applications where comfort isn't one of the design considerations, you DO see "strange" configurations like 12 liter inline 6's. It isn't the smoothest thing but it gets the job done.

You are almost right but configuration still plays a role.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

What limits engine output is money. If you got money, you can buy power. Boost, displacement, and tech all cost money. Consider these four engines:
Ford 5.4L V8, supercharged, 3 valve, 550HP, 500LB-ft, ~550LBs (est weight based on 4.6 SOHC and DOHC setups)
BMW 5.0L V10, tons of high tech, 503HP, 383LB-ft, 530LBs
Chevrolet 7.0L V8, 500HP, 475LB-ft, 400LBs.
Ferrari 4.7L V12, tons of high end tuning, 513HP, 347LB-ft, 430LBs

Four ways to get 500HP, but the displacement does NOT indicate the engine weight.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
What limits engine output is money. If you got money, you can buy power. Boost, displacement, and tech all cost money. Consider these four engines:
Ford 5.4L V8, supercharged, 3 valve, 550HP, 500LB-ft, ~550LBs (est weight based on 4.6 SOHC and DOHC setups)
BMW 5.0L V10, tons of high tech, 503HP, 383LB-ft, 530LBs
Chevrolet 7.0L V8, 500HP, 475LB-ft, 400LBs.
Ferrari 4.7L V12, tons of high end tuning, 513HP, 347LB-ft, 430LBs

Four ways to get 500HP, but the displacement does NOT indicate the engine weight.

How's that saying go?
"Fast, reliable, cheap. Pick two."

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser


You are almost right but configuration still plays a role.

If you look at the formulas for power production, there is no mention of configuration. The configuration determines things like engine smoothness and engine weight, but as far as making power it doesn't matter.

In the formula the main factors are the volumetric efficiency, the displacement, and the RPM.

As you correctly mentioned before, an engine is just an air pump.

 

[FrustratedUser]

Originally posted by: Silversierra
Yeah that would be a nightmare having tons of ports. I wasn't actually serious, I just think it's funny that they just keep adding ports to cylinders. I mean why use 2 intake 2 exhaust? Couldn't you have one each and make them bigger if you need more airflow?

Because 2 big valves can only cover so much of the area while 4 valves can cover more.

 

[arcenite]

cylinders != horsepower
cylinders = smoothness

BMW's 12cyl makes just as much power as their 8cyl, but it's a shitload smoother

 

[FrustratedUser]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser


You are almost right but configuration still plays a role.

If you look at the formulas for power production, there is no mention of configuration. The configuration determines things like engine smoothness and engine weight, but as far as making power it doesn't matter.

In the formula the main factors are the volumetric efficiency, the displacement, and the RPM.

As you correctly mentioned before, an engine is just an air pump.

You are right, it does not say anything about the configuration BUT as you also said it has everything to do with volumetric efficiency. However, it turns out that using more cylinders and valves yield higher volumetric efficiency (combined with intake and exhaust timing). It's an indirect relationship, and that's indirectly the reason why (at the beginning of the naturally aspirated period of F1 in the '90s) the 3.5liter V12 produced more power than the 3.5liter V8.

I know, we are really getting into details now. :beer:

 

[maziwanka]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
/cockpunch

- M4H

HAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser

You are right, it does not say anything about the configuration BUT as you also said it has everything to do with volumetric efficiency.

I know, we are really getting into details now. :beer:

Yes, that is true.

I think it's interesting figuring out all the parameters of an engine's design. When you really start to look into things, each extra level of detail opens up another can of worms that has its own formulas, calculations, tradeoffs, etc.

Good stuff.