What if... about engine size
#28
12-15-2006 | 07:41 PM
Actually, F1 racing engines in the early to mid 60's were 1.5l and were mostly V8 configurations. The Lotus 25 was powered by a Coventry-Climax V8 of 1500cc displacement and when installed in Colin chapman's most perfect (IMHO) chassis it won the F1 World Championship in 1962!
There is no physical reason that V8 engines have to be as big as we 'Mericans are used to seeing them, but it would be pointless to try for "small" when the inherent balance and smoothness of a V8 will allow for nearly obscene numbers of cc's of hydrocarbons beng burnt (incompletely) and then spewed into the atmosphere!
Engine power is mostly a function of the conversion of chemical energy to mechanical energy (see my earlier post on this). Therefore, there are 2 basic paths automotive engineers can follow to increase H.P. at the flywheel: 1. burn more gas (the classic American approach) or 2. burn the gas more efficiently (the rest of the world's approach since at least the 70s). The goal is the same - convert as many BTUs as possible into BHPs (Brake Horse Power). It's all in the combustion of gasoline.
There is no physical reason that V8 engines have to be as big as we 'Mericans are used to seeing them, but it would be pointless to try for "small" when the inherent balance and smoothness of a V8 will allow for nearly obscene numbers of cc's of hydrocarbons beng burnt (incompletely) and then spewed into the atmosphere!
Engine power is mostly a function of the conversion of chemical energy to mechanical energy (see my earlier post on this). Therefore, there are 2 basic paths automotive engineers can follow to increase H.P. at the flywheel: 1. burn more gas (the classic American approach) or 2. burn the gas more efficiently (the rest of the world's approach since at least the 70s). The goal is the same - convert as many BTUs as possible into BHPs (Brake Horse Power). It's all in the combustion of gasoline.
small v8 = way high rpms due to less reciprocating mass = probably more h.p. and smooooooth but expensive!!
#32
12-15-2006 | 07:49 PM
#34
12-15-2006 | 09:44 PM
6th Gear
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,692
Likes: 1
#35
12-16-2006 | 10:50 AM
5th Gear
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 923
Likes: 1
From: Southern IL
I feel obligated to point out that cylinder count alone does not determine the engines smoothness but also the engine layout and how it handles secondary vibrations. Most I-4s use balance shafts to quell secondary vibrations while Inline sixes and V or Flat 12s create almost no secondary vibrations.
http://www.autozine.org/technical_sc...ne/smooth1.htm
http://www.autozine.org/technical_sc...ne/smooth1.htm
#36
12-16-2006 | 11:26 AM
I feel obligated to point out that cylinder count alone does not determine the engines smoothness but also the engine layout and how it handles secondary vibrations. Most I-4s use balance shafts to quell secondary vibrations while Inline sixes and V or Flat 12s create almost no secondary vibrations.
http://www.autozine.org/technical_sc...ne/smooth1.htm
http://www.autozine.org/technical_sc...ne/smooth1.htm
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
col127
F55/F56 :: Hatch Talk (2014+)
4
08-21-2015 02:11 PM