Displacement

[Estrella]

Why did makers such as Ferrari and the like go smaller in displacement VS. the like of Ford and Chevrolet with their huge displacement engines in racing. Why did the exotics diverge?

 

[mwmorph]

Preference and culture, some like the Lazy V8 burble, nascar and cheap gas and large motors are entrenched in American history. Also, the broad and massive torque is excellent for the American who wants a more relaxed street driving experience thanks to the longer distances Americans drive(100k miles is insane in England and warrants junking in the minds of most English while 100k miles is pretty much pretty acceptable and still in the very edge of reliability in the minds of most Americans)

While Europeans that are used to F1 racing, super high gas prices and small displacement motors because of the aforementioned like their engines to shriek at 8000+rpm, unfortunately without the broad torque, it's a more busy experience driving, keeping the engine in the top power band. On the other hand, it is more involving...Like I said though involving can be good if you don't drive a lot and especially not in bumper to bumper traffic, but for the American who commutes much more than the European, involving can also mean tiring.

Though those are just my estimates and no way based no fact...

 

[Summitdrinker]

cost, chevy and ford make most of there cars for the masses

plus like what mwmorph said, many (most) americans don't want a high reving buzz engine, they want smooth torque

 

[Estrella]

I have all my conjectures too which basically go along with what you are saying. However, for instance the C6 Z06 is wiping ass with it's competitors in the GT(appropriate class number here. 2?) with a comparatively huge displacement engine. Why haven't we seen Ferrari just amp up the displacement another liter for their 4.3L engine in the F430 and put in the insane amount of work they do into their engines and wipe Chevrolet out forever?

 

[thedarkwolf]

Refinement is a big part of it. A smaller displacement dohc v8 will run smoother and make the same power as a bigger displacement engine but at the cost of physical size and cost $$$. When you are buying a 200k Ferrari you don't want a lumpy vibrating v8. When you buy a $70k vette that matches the 200k Ferrari's performance you can live with it. Chevy really has it good with the whole LS series of engine. Its small physically so they can put it in about anything, cheap, and gets pretty damn good gas mileage for its power. Wish I could find the pic of Ford's 4.6l dohc engine beside their old 5.0l sohv engine. The 4.6l is HUGE!!!!

In a lot of places people are taxed based on engine size so you get high revving low displacement engines to still have some power with your 1.2l engine.

 

[Apex]

Originally posted by: thedarkwolf
Refinement is a big part of it. A smaller displacement dohc v8 will run smoother and make the same power as a bigger displacement engine but at the cost of physical size and cost $$$. When you are buying a 200k Ferrari you don't want a lumpy vibrating v8. When you buy a $70k vette that matches the 200k Ferrari's performance you can live with it. Chevy really has it good with the whole LS series of engine. Its small physically so they can put it in about anything, cheap, and gets pretty damn good gas mileage for its power. Wish I could find the pic of Ford's 4.6l dohc engine beside their old 5.0l sohv engine. The 4.6l is HUGE!!!!

In a lot of places people are taxed based on engine size so you get high revving low displacement engines to still have some power with your 1.2l engine.

Here are the pictures:

http://www.nobleforums.com/ima...0/engines/sbc_ford.jpg

This is even funnier, a 5.7L V8 SBC and tranny (background) vs a 4 Cyl Miata engine and tranny (foreground):

http://www.nobleforums.com/ima.../engines/sbc_miata.jpg

Actually though, refinement has very little to do with it. Big and small engines can be equally smooth.

It tends to be easier for a lighter rotating assembly to rev higher, thus smaller displacement OHC engines tend to rev higher than larger displacement OHV engines.

Tax is definitely an issue, though it's a bit of a cop out, since we're comparing a $12k engine (Chevy LS7) vs a $50k engine (Ferrari's F430 engine). There's no way to make up that difference in tax savings.

I personally think the two biggest reasons are:

1. Magazine racers: There are still lots and LOTS of people who think hp per liter is important, and magazines continue to feed into this. HP per liter sells cars to this kind of ignorance. Selling cars is what car companies do.

2. Tradition. Many companies are known for small displacement engines, and will not change no matter what.

 

[Strk]

Hang on a second, we're arguing cost as a factor on high performance cars? Even a cheap one (a Corvette) is $70k -- with almost all others being six figures. I don't think someone buying one of those is going "well crap, the gas will hurt my wallet!"

 

[thedarkwolf]

Cost is a factor to the manufactures. Ferrari and the like make nothing but highend cars so they can afford to make engines with all kinds of fancy smancy do dads and cost $50k alone. It really doesn't make a lot of sense for Chevy, Ford, and Chrysler to make a one off engine for their one or two ultra highend sports cars. Their performance engines need to be based on their more common truck/car engines.

I didn't mean small engines are smoother then bigger ones. I just meant OHC engines are usually smoother then OHV engines.

 

[Summitdrinker]

how about engine life span. true bigger engine wears fast if you rev them up all the time, but if you keep the rpm down they will last a long time

turbo's and superchargers cost money, and they give owners more repair problems in the long run

even 4 valves engines cost more to make than 2 valves, plus that more parts to wear out, burn away, plus one oil area to seal

ya I know some 4 bangers can go a long time....but there in light small cars

 

[Estrella]

please stay on topic

 

[CurseTheSky]

A 427 SOHC Side-Oiler revved up to only five grand just sounds so much more menacing than an "exotic" 4.xL revved up to 7-8k. Hell, the 289 sitting in my '66 sounds like it wants to jump out of from under the hood, eat another car for breakfast, and spit it back out. And it's only rated at 200 horse...

I think it's more American tradition. We've always had much more inefficient, clunky, less refined engines. It goes back to the fifties and sixties, and probably earlier. Lamborginis and Ferraris sound and perform very very well, but I would much rather be cruising around in a '67 GT500. We're stubborn, what can I say?

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: thedarkwolf
I didn't mean small engines are smoother then bigger ones. I just meant OHC engines are usually smoother then OHV engines.

Not true. Valvetrain has almost nothing to do with an engine's smoothness. Smoothness is determined by crankshaft design and balancer shafts (the latter only in certain engine configurations).

ZV

 

[mwmorph]

Also, I think I forgot to add, matainence, matainence for a ferrari is in the thousands per scheulded matainence interval)
http://www.edmunds.com/insidel...ngTerm/articleId=49771

A corvette's 5k matainence will cost maybe 3% of that. A mustang's 5k mile oil change is ~2% of that cost.

 

[GalvanizedYankee]

Because in America ppl will hunt deer with an elephant gun.

 

[mwmorph]

Originally posted by: GalvanizedYankee
Because in America ppl will hunt deer with an elephant gun.

Nothing wrong with that.

"There's no kill like overkill"

 

[Pacfanweb]

It's funny how people like to characterize the American V-8's as "unrefined" vs. the Ferarris, Lambos, etc, yet our "unrefined" engines last FAR longer and are FAR more reliable than any of those exotic cars have ever been.

Hey, Euros like women with hairy armpits, too.....

 

[Summitdrinker]

stay on topic

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
It's funny how people like to characterize the American V-8's as "unrefined" vs. the Ferarris, Lambos, etc, yet our "unrefined" engines last FAR longer and are FAR more reliable than any of those exotic cars have ever been.

Hey, Euros like women with hairy armpits, too.....

It's true.. lol

It boils down to average piston FPM, which is a function of stroke and RPM. The lower the better as far as engine longevity, period.

 

[thomsbrain]

because small light engines that make lots of power in small light cars go really fast. but it is expensive to make powerful small engines, and the resulting high-revving engines don't suit average joe who pisses his pants when he tops 4,000 RPM.

big heavy engines that make lots of power in big heavy cars only go pretty fast. but they are cheap to make and they make average joe think his car is the sh!t cause it pulls fairly hard at 2,000 RPM (regardless of the car's actual maximum speed potential).

so basically, money and taste.

 

[Apex]

Originally posted by: thomsbrain
because small light engines that make lots of power in small light cars go really fast. but it is expensive to make powerful small engines, and the resulting high-revving engines don't suit average joe who pisses his pants when he tops 4,000 RPM.

big heavy engines that make lots of power in big heavy cars only go pretty fast. but they are cheap to make and they make average joe think his car is the sh!t cause it pulls fairly hard at 2,000 RPM (regardless of the car's actual maximum speed potential).

so basically, money and taste.

The issue though is that apples to apples, greater displacement rarely means greater weight.

 

[mwmorph]

Originally posted by: thomsbrain
because small light engines that make lots of power in small light cars go really fast. but it is expensive to make powerful small engines, and the resulting high-revving engines don't suit average joe who pisses his pants when he tops 4,000 RPM.

big heavy engines that make lots of power in big heavy cars only go pretty fast. but they are cheap to make and they make average joe think his car is the sh!t cause it pulls fairly hard at 2,000 RPM (regardless of the car's actual maximum speed potential).

so basically, money and taste.

The LS7 Z06 Smallblock engine weights 438lbs with 7 litres of displacement while BMW's 5 Litre V10 weighs 529lbs.

Both make comparable horsepower, with the Chevy edging it out, but the Chevy makes basically 90 ft/lbs more torque.

I don't understand why people think the American engines are so primitive. The LS7 is more reliable, lighter, and more powerful than the BMW V10s that fans and journalists orgasm over. Not only that, the Corvette Z06 gets 16/26city/highway. M5/M6 gets 12/18.

Don't even get started about the 650hp Mopar 8.4L V10 either, somehow through black magic or whatnot, they've managed to implement variable valve timing on a OHV motor.
http://www.autoblog.com/2007/0...e-porn-mopar-8-4l-v10/
http://www.sae.org/automag/tec...70402Powertrain/04.htm

Also do not be pissing on Average joe's tastes, A 25K mustang GT is as quick(0-60, 1/4 mile) as a 45K 335i, a 42K Corvette is as fast or faster than any BMW, Mercedes or Audi (Even the R8). A 70K Z06 is competitive with most super cars from Europe, lapping the Nurburgring Nordschlife as fast or faster than a 599GTB, Veyron, Murceilago, Zonda S, Gallardo, F430 and 911 GT3

That's not "pretty fast", that's blows Europeans out of the water. Big motors when engineered correctly like the LS7 Corvette are more efficient from an engineering standpoint in price and performance.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: Apex

Originally posted by: thomsbrain
because small light engines that make lots of power in small light cars go really fast. but it is expensive to make powerful small engines, and the resulting high-revving engines don't suit average joe who pisses his pants when he tops 4,000 RPM.

big heavy engines that make lots of power in big heavy cars only go pretty fast. but they are cheap to make and they make average joe think his car is the sh!t cause it pulls fairly hard at 2,000 RPM (regardless of the car's actual maximum speed potential).

so basically, money and taste.

The issue though is that apples to apples, greater displacement rarely means greater weight.

What are you talking about? Greater displacement ALWAYS means greater weight, assuming you're talking about the engine itself.

Now if you're talking about not meaning the actual car weighs more, then yes.

But in general, you can't get a significant increase in displacement without an increase in the physical size of the engine, therefore it weighs more.

However, usually the weight gain is more than offset by the power gain. Built the same way, a larger engine will always make more power than a smaller one.
No replacement for displacement.

And I don't want to hear anyone saying "but what if you turbo/supercharge the smaller engine.
Well, first of all, I said "built the same way"...which means, apples-to-apples. Forced induction is simply a way of making the engine larger without actually increasing its displacement.
And if you're going to compare a forced-induction small engine to a large one, then the large one needs to be forced-induction, too...and it will make more power. Strictly talking about power potential, larger engines are always better.

To get back on topic, the Euros made smaller cars in general, and used smaller engines as a result.

 

[GoatMonkey]

To get equal power from a smaller engine greater displacement does not necessarily mean greater weight. You're right that 2 engines built the same way but one with larger displacement it will weigh more. But to get the same power from a smaller engine requires extra technology that usually adds weight and cost.

I think the reason Ferrari is still going with smaller engines has to do with racing heritage/racing technology that people want and expect in their cars. Currently Ferrari is heavily investing in Formula One racing. Actually, Formula One racing is the reason for the existence of the road cars in the first place, funding of the racing team. But anyway current F1 cars run 2.4L V-8s that spin to around 20K RPMs. Buyers of the road cars are often fans of the racing team and want a taste of what it's like to drive an F1 car. When turbos were allowed in F1 cars Ferrari made cars with turbos, when paddle shifters appeared in F1 cars Ferrari made road cars with paddle shifters, for a couple of examples. We've also seen a rise in the use of carbon fiber, ABS, traction control, etc. all derived from F1.

Buyers of Corvettes mostly want cheap speed. Big displacement is the obvious choice.

Some other exotics that don't have ties to racing have gone the route of big displacement. The Bugatti Veyron comes to mind. And even Ferrari is starting to head in that direction for some of their road cars.

 

[overst33r]

Originally posted by: GoatMonkey
To get equal power from a smaller engine greater displacement does not necessarily mean greater weight. You're right that 2 engines built the same way but one with larger displacement it will weigh more. But to get the same power from a smaller engine requires extra technology that usually adds weight and cost.

I think the reason Ferrari is still going with smaller engines has to do with racing heritage/racing technology that people want and expect in their cars. Currently Ferrari is heavily investing in Formula One racing. Actually, Formula One racing is the reason for the existence of the road cars in the first place, funding of the racing team. But anyway current F1 cars run 2.4L V-8s that spin to around 20K RPMs. Buyers of the road cars are often fans of the racing team and want a taste of what it's like to drive an F1 car. When turbos were allowed in F1 cars Ferrari made cars with turbos, when paddle shifters appeared in F1 cars Ferrari made road cars with paddle shifters, for a couple of examples. We've also seen a rise in the use of carbon fiber, ABS, traction control, etc. all derived from F1.

Buyers of Corvettes mostly want cheap speed. Big displacement is the obvious choice.

Some other exotics that don't have ties to racing have gone the route of big displacement. The Bugatti Veyron comes to mind. And even Ferrari is starting to head in that direction for some of their road cars.

The Bugatti Veyron does not really carry a lot of displacement when you take into account it has 16 cylinders. That is 0.5L per cylinder, the same as an M5 which has a low displacement V10. So in relation to the number of cylinders it isn't really "big displacement."

 

[Demon-Xanth]

The single biggest factor is laws and racing class displacement rules. The US racing organizations such as NASCAR and NHRA are predominant here while FIA is predominant in Europe. Also, many countries have taxes/laws regarding engines over a specific displacement whereas the US has CAFE. These differences basically caused large engines to be favorable in the US, while high revving engines to be favorable in Europe.

When a racing class only allows for a certain displacement, you end up being forced to go for high revving. When cost is the major factor, displacement becomes attractive.