How are American engine mfgs able to make high HP with simple designs? - Page 2
Close
Login to Your Account
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 65
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    barcelona, spain
    Posts
    2,062
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    409
    Likes (Received)
    1123

    Default

    I don´t see the point.
    Like F1, LeMans24, etc. none of those will last in real use - nor are for sale to the general public.

    What american engine has high HP, high longevity, overall ?
    I confess I have no idea.

    The Nissan NSxx series was very famous for high power, aftermarket, and low failures.

    The LaFerrari, failed in 5 minutes in california with engine failure, on a utube video.

    Very high rpm, leads to very high valve/cam speeds, high wear, and low longevity at max loads.
    The F1 engines are only meant to work about 2-6 hours, lifetime, (depends on nr of races) at 12.000 rpm or so iirc.
    The US (specific) drag race engines are masters of peak HP short term.
    The F1 1.6 l engines are masters of high rev acceleration and incredible peak HP at high revs, with very low longevity.

    The typical top sportscars like Subaru STi, Porsche, will not last in high load dynamic situations.
    If You run them at top peak HP, high rpm, over hours, multiple times, the engine will fail.
    I did that, to 2+ cars/engines.
    BTW..
    The Subaru STi is the fastest real-world car on the street.
    Because one can keep the pedal at max through 255 km/h corners, ie every single highway in the world, while drift driving and all 4 wheels sliding a bit.
    Every highway is corner-to-corner at 255 kmh- 10-20-30 secs, max == 50 secs till next corner.
    Needed to fill up every 55 mins, 28 l/hr consumption.
    The lambo diablo was slower ime overall- though faster short-term.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Minnesota
    Posts
    34
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    9
    Likes (Received)
    24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by metalmaster10 View Post
    It would be impossible to address every issue/ question in your post without writing an entire book... however, to simplify a couple main points.
    I was thinking the same thing. With todays technology it is not hard to come up with at least 2.25 HP per CI on a NA Motor.

    A few years ago we were pushing 2.94 HP per CI from 500 inches using Big Block Chevy/Olds DRCEII Platform Naturally Aspirated. The HP gains were directly related to sealing the combustion camber as perfect as possible getting the full power transmitted to the Crankshaft. 3 or less CFM blow-by was the goal at 9800 RPM. We measured this using a flow meter on the Sump Tank.

    Started with the Block, Piston and Ring Package Prep. The Block was Bored/Honed as straight as possible, pistons design not to deflect under pressure with the shortest possible skirt. Rings were back tapered. To really seat the rings we had to pull 22 inches of Vacuum on the entire Crankcase using a 7 stage external Oil Pump and Dry Sump System.

    Next was getting enough air into the motor. 1.125 lift cam and matching valve train to make sure it could live at 10500 RPM. Custom built Intakes and custom ported heads constantly in development. And none of that mattered without a good set of Carbs (Fuel injection is a better option but back when we were doing this it was not allowed in the class).

    Exhaust was important to get the Cylinders to scavenge properly. Stepped Headers, long Collectors, short Collectors...you have to try everything.

    Next was Oil Control. We wanted just enough oil in the Motor to keep the Bearing wet. 20-25 lbs at 10K RPM's was the norm. At idle and all the red lights on the dash were flashing. We used oil retention coatings and oil shedding coating on different parts to lower the drag coefficient.

    I was the driver...not the engine builder. I knew enough to be dangerous but spent many nights shoveling chips out of a 5 axis Haas cutting Cylinder Heads and Intakes. Wore my fingers out changing Cams, Intakes and Exhaust Headers on the Dyno sessions.

    Building Power was priority 1 and so was acceleration rate of the Motor. Once the lower end was assembled you could spin the Motors with one hand on the Crank Snout. Took 2 hands with the Cam and Heads (no Spare Plugs).

    These motors had a reasonable life to them. 40 quarter mile passes after 20 pulls on the dyno trying different combinations. The Valve Springs were the weak link and changed 3-4 of them per pass. The drivers ability to shift at the designated RPM within +/-50 RPM made the motor live longer...we never ran a motor out to 40 passes simply because we would go back to the shop and try and find 1 more HP and a little less drag.

    Some of this technology has made its way into the high performance world of daily drivers.

    dsc07085.jpg

  3. Likes Hbjj, David_M liked this post
  4. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Hatch, NM Chile capital of the WORLD
    Posts
    8,013
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    10450
    Likes (Received)
    8736

    Default

    Lets look at the flip side... How the hell could american engine mfgs make such little
    HP with so many cubic inches in the 70's? 360 in my Jeep had a wopping 125hp..
    A '75 vette with a 350 was 165hp IIRC..

    Its kind of crazy.. Better cam designs.. Better combustion chambers, better ports, better flow..
    I'm sure fuel injection doesn't hurt.. Its really sad when some econo-shitboxes have more HP than some
    of the late 60's muscle cars..

    A late 80's Five-Point-Oh Mustang was about 225hp, and that was exciting.. Now the base model shitty
    mustang with a 4 banger is 310hp. and the 5 liter is 460hp... That's just insane.

    For what its worth, on the cam design.. My old '75 Datsun.. Bone stock, had nothing under 3000rpms and
    fell on its face at 5600... Put a newer cam in it, cleaned the heads up a bit, and it would pull HARD from
    just off idle to about 6000 when I ran out of fuel(needed bigger injectors), and the fuel mileage went up
    almost 50%...

    And also for what its worth, my better half's grocery getter will do 0-60 in 6 seconds and get 28mpg
    at 110 (don't ask how I know that)..

    Technology is awesome.

  5. #24
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    New Jersey
    Posts
    753
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    67
    Likes (Received)
    328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hanermo View Post
    BTW..
    The Subaru STi is the fastest real-world car on the street.
    Because one can keep the pedal at max through 255 km/h corners, ie every single highway in the world, while drift driving and all 4 wheels sliding a bit.
    Every highway is corner-to-corner at 255 kmh- 10-20-30 secs, max == 50 secs till next corner.
    Needed to fill up every 55 mins, 28 l/hr consumption.
    The lambo diablo was slower ime overall- though faster short-term.
    Are you high?

  6. Likes John Welden, tdmidget, hermetic, boosted liked this post
  7. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Vt USA
    Posts
    5,980
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    527
    Likes (Received)
    1824

    Default

    Just think of the fun possibilities when materials technology will allow IC engine thermal efficiency to get away from the 30% figure it has been stuck at for the past 100 years.

    Where is Smokey Yunick when you need him? ;-)

  8. Likes Bobw, hermetic liked this post
  9. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    dallas,tx
    Posts
    2,292
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    360
    Likes (Received)
    347

    Default

    "There is only one thing better than cubic inches...cubic feet!" - Fred Duesenberg.

  10. #27
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Arizona
    Posts
    150
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    5
    Likes (Received)
    36

    Default

    As with most things follow the money trail...

    A lot of the European countries as well as Japan and China tax according to engine displacement. It only makes sense that manufacturers for these markets would tend to make smaller engines but try to squeeze more power out of them which results in more complexity vs US markets where you can use simple designs and
    Quote Originally Posted by daryl bane View Post
    "...cubic feet!"
    I think some of the European countries are now going from an engine displacement to CO2 emission based tax so things may change a bit.

    The other big factor is emissions and fuel efficiency requirements. This played a part in the cars that came out after the 70s being atrocities like a vette with 165hp.

  11. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    gloucester ma
    Posts
    1,523
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    43
    Likes (Received)
    877

    Default

    horsepower is a semi meaningless number.

    Area under the curve is a more realistic number.

    I figured this out trying to explain the performance of those 1970's Corvettes and Monte Carlos compared to their horsepower. Sure 165 peak horsepower, but 160 foot pounds of torque at 1500 rpm to 5000, they are accelerating before your 200 hp 4 cylinder has gotten on cam.

    Now thanks to electronics, they get both, torque from the cubic inches horsepower from EFI

    Creating peak horsepower is relatively simple, creating a system that will have the drivability that you expect with a 3000 pound plus car is another.
    Ferrari motors were not particularly small, their v12's only a bit under 5 liters and rising through the 80s, but the combination of more cylinders[more torque] and high rpm ability made them superior performers, the combination of high torque and wide power band making them perform even better than their numbers

    i am an 'adding lightness' kinda guy, so I prefer a smaller engine in order to lower overall vehicle weight, and in the past many euro cars got performance advantages by building around a smaller alloy engine that while it may only weigh 300 pounds less than an american v8, might drop the vehicle weight by 2 to 3 times that number. Multiple cams were as much about marketing as performance; multiple valves improve tractability

    In the end it is not about horsepower per cubic inch, but horsepower per pound

  12. Likes 72bwhite, Oldwrench liked this post
  13. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    6,477
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    327
    Likes (Received)
    2641

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bobw View Post
    Lets look at the flip side... How the hell could american engine mfgs make such little
    HP with so many cubic inches in the 70's?
    Simple answer, the government imposed emissions requirements the manufacturers had no clue how to meet. So the first thing the manufacturers did was kill all the high performance cams and retard the grocery getter cams that were left.

    Detroit didn't even care about cylinder head air flow until the '80's. Then the first clues came from drag and stock car racers with their Superflow flow benches.

    That 4.6L modular engine mentioned above was one of the first with cylinder ports that were designed from flow bench data.

  14. Likes Bobw, Oldwrench liked this post
  15. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    481
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spud View Post
    Something I have been curious about: How can the likes of GM, Dodge make high HP engines utilizing simple technology (relative to the Euros and Japanese) ? When the Euros make high HP engines, they are complex , like the BMW in the McLaren F1 of the 90s, Ferrari engines, Mercedes engines in their high-end models and the Pagani, the W16 of the Bugatti.

    Look a the Dodge Demon, that thing makes 840hp (don't know if that is measured at the wheel or crank).

    American engines just seem soo much simpler than European high HP ones, is that an erroneous perception ?
    You could look at it from a different viewpoint: European designers don't put that kind of horsepower in anything but "super cars" that cost a lot more than a Dodge Demon. Given the selling price of those cars, they can/must put a lot of fancy work into the engine, partly for marketing. Who would shell out big money for a Zonda that had a big, simple engine?

  16. #31
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Country
    FINLAND
    Posts
    824
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    195
    Likes (Received)
    379

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tomato coupe View Post
    You could look at it from a different viewpoint: European designers don't put that kind of horsepower in anything but "super cars" that cost a lot more than a Dodge Demon. Given the selling price of those cars, they can/must put a lot of fancy work into the engine, partly for marketing. Who would shell out big money for a Zonda that had a big, simple engine?
    The previously mentioned Ford modular engine was good enough for Koenigsegg CCR.
    AFAIK the later in-house Koenigsegg engine developements are also quite similar to 5 liter Ford, including the $4M One:1

  17. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Country
    CANADA
    State/Province
    Manitoba
    Posts
    160
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    14
    Likes (Received)
    59

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MattiJ View Post
    Doesn't qualify as a real american engine since it's not pushrod.
    So the 427 Cammer ford put out in 63 was also not American. Oh NOooooo....i've been lied to again.

  18. #33
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Country
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    4,142
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1919
    Likes (Received)
    1686

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spud View Post
    Something I have been curious about: How can the likes of GM, Dodge make high HP engines utilizing simple technology (relative to the Euros and Japanese) ? When the Euros make high HP engines, they are complex , like the BMW in the McLaren F1 of the 90s, Ferrari engines, Mercedes engines in their high-end models and the Pagani, the W16 of the Bugatti.

    Look a the Dodge Demon, that thing makes 840hp (don't know if that is measured at the wheel or crank).

    American engines just seem soo much simpler than European high HP ones, is that an erroneous perception ?
    Dodge demon 6.2 litres 840hp, 4,255 lb
    Mercedes W07 F1 car 1.6 litres 1000hp, 1,548 lb

    That's ythe difference in clomplexity.

  19. #34
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Country
    CANADA
    State/Province
    Manitoba
    Posts
    160
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    14
    Likes (Received)
    59

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rand View Post
    Dodge demon 6.2 litres 840hp, 4,255 lb
    Mercedes W07 F1 car 1.6 litres 1000hp, 1,548 lb

    That's ythe difference in clomplexity.
    You forgot....Dodge 6.2 liters expected service life 100000 miles. Mercedes F1...1000 miles tops.

  20. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Woodland Hills, Ca. and some times Hutchinson, Ks.
    Posts
    2,083
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4
    Likes (Received)
    379

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rigor View Post
    You forgot....Dodge 6.2 liters expected service life 100000 miles. Mercedes F1...1000 miles tops.
    That is misleading, the F1 engine is operating at 75% power or greater most of its life, the Dodge is at perhaps 25%. Continuous power rating for things like airplanes or boats are life limited much sooner due to stress. For example a diesel engine in a tractor truck may go 1.5 million miles on the highway, the same core engine at the same power output in a boat 15K hours. That translates to about half the life span of the truck. The boat engine is at a higher power setting for a higher percentage of its service life.

    Then we have things like valve springs mentioned above, on high RPM engines the valve springs may need to be replaced well before the other moving elements show fatigue. In V engines with overhead cams the valvetrain is generally chain driven, this and chain guides are another wear item that often require higher replacement cycles.

    The stress analogy works with the displacement vs power in many cases. An engine of 5 liters making 500HP is going to generally have a longer life span than a 2 liter engine making 500HP. That is predicated on both engines operating at the same power output. In cars and light trucks the power demand is generally rather low, it may take 150HP to accelerate to highway speed but only require 75HP to maintain speed. That alone allows auto makers to develop more burst power for smaller engines and, why a auto derived engine in say a generator is so over sized.

    Steve

  21. #36
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    California, Ventura county
    Posts
    1,351
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    174
    Likes (Received)
    498

    Default

    and you have to take into account at what rpm your hp is at
    that how many foot pound at what rpm.
    guys are getting some big hp number out of tuned up
    pinto engines but they are spinning at 8000 and higher rpm



    every one got more efficiency when they went to efi

  22. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Brookfield, Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,832
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    190
    Likes (Received)
    316

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rand View Post
    Dodge demon 6.2 litres 840hp, 4,255 lb
    Mercedes W07 F1 car 1.6 litres 1000hp, 1,548 lb

    That's ythe difference in clomplexity.
    Production car to Production car comparison, or even Production car to Limited run double diigit Production-run cars.

  23. #38
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Country
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    4,142
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1919
    Likes (Received)
    1686

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spud View Post
    Production car to Production car comparison, or even Production car to Limited run double diigit Production-run cars.
    Sorry, you specifically mentioned F1 in the original post, so I used that as an example.

    Basically for production cars it's because of different tax regimes, higher cost of fuel and (caused by the first two) some degree of concern about the environment.

    It's not specifically Europe/USA. Ford, GM etc operate in both areas and can make whichever designs sell in those areas.

  24. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    louisiana
    Posts
    424
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    49
    Likes (Received)
    148

    Default

    And I'll add the 1963 427 sohc Ford is still the highest hp N/A engine to come from a major mfg. 660 HP with dual carbs,615 with a single.

    Dodge was about to come out with a dohc 426 hemi to beat it.

    Airflow and fuel = power

    One more thing , ohc valve train does not make a engine new or modern,nor does a American v8 have to be pushrod.

    Ohc,dohc has been around since the beginning...the Ford gaa tank engine for the shernans was dohc and 1000ci v8 in ww2,to name one of many .

  25. #40
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Country
    CANADA
    State/Province
    Manitoba
    Posts
    160
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    14
    Likes (Received)
    59

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve in SoCal View Post
    That is misleading, the F1 engine is operating at 75% power or greater most of its life, the Dodge is at perhaps 25%. Continuous power rating for things like airplanes or boats are life limited much sooner due to stress. For example a diesel engine in a tractor truck may go 1.5 million miles on the highway, the same core engine at the same power output in a boat 15K hours. That translates to about half the life span of the truck. The boat engine is at a higher power setting for a higher percentage of its service life.

    Then we have things like valve springs mentioned above, on high RPM engines the valve springs may need to be replaced well before the other moving elements show fatigue. In V engines with overhead cams the valvetrain is generally chain driven, this and chain guides are another wear item that often require higher replacement cycles.

    The stress analogy works with the displacement vs power in many cases. An engine of 5 liters making 500HP is going to generally have a longer life span than a 2 liter engine making 500HP. That is predicated on both engines operating at the same power output. In cars and light trucks the power demand is generally rather low, it may take 150HP to accelerate to highway speed but only require 75HP to maintain speed. That alone allows auto makers to develop more burst power for smaller engines and, why a auto derived engine in say a generator is so over sized.

    Steve
    Where did you get your facts.
    Maybe where you live truck operate under low stress much of their life, but not here. My neighbor drives tractor trailers(super B's) and hauls cement loads up and down the road grossing 63000 kgs. He often mentions having his foot firmly planted down on the accelerator with the turbo whistling away at 37 psi boost, for most of his trips because of the huge rolling resistance and windy and sometimes cold conditions on the prairies. His last truck had 1250000 miles on it before it crapped out.
    My analogy wasnt misleading. I was simply pointing out that for reliability you need volumetric efficiency on your side. That was all.


Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •