F1technical.net

krisfx wrote: ↑

15 Nov 2017, 09:22

CBeck113 wrote: ↑

14 Nov 2017, 13:53

bill shoe wrote: ↑

14 Nov 2017, 02:14

If you want to judge an engine then look at size, weight, torque curve (power), responsiveness, etc. Not clear why the internal swept volume of all the cylinders would matter.

If you want to talk down on this engine then you should be saying things like: "Ferrari already made an engine with that much power in a smaller and lighter package". Except you probably can't say that.

All this while meeting current emissions regulations. I do not understand how people can belittle such engineering by comparing it to a tuned engine: the one-off tuned engine will not do 150k miles under warranty, but will most likely explode within the next 20k (which is expected and accepted by the owner)...the ZR-1 engine, like all others from a manufacturer, is subject to warranty, which smaller companies like Ferrari can "circumvent" by demanding deep engine services (valve play as an example) at a ridiculously early interval which only a supercar owner will accept and pay.

krisfx wrote: ↑

15 Nov 2017, 09:22

I compared it against the specific output (arguably a good measure of performance on engines with different sizes) of an F20C engine, which is a standard Honda engine and most are on over 100,000m / 160,000km and still running strong.

And you are correct, but where's the direct replacement for it, since being discontinued in 2009? The Type R motor is now 2.4l and produces 240hp, so I will go out on a limb here and say that Honda back-peddled for the sake of reliability (remember, it is vastly cheaper to produce a "lower spec" engine). If it was only about making a monster engine, then we'd see monsters from every brand, but since making cars is a business, the engines will suit the business needs, even when put into a Corvette ZR-1.

krisfx wrote: ↑

15 Nov 2017, 09:22

I don't understand how US car companies need so much displacement and a massive supercharger to get any form of power.

Why not, it's cheap and quite robust - saves costs later. The supercharger simply feeds the huge volume more oxygen to burn, making a relatively inefficient engine much better.

CBeck113 wrote: ↑

15 Nov 2017, 16:26

krisfx wrote: ↑

15 Nov 2017, 09:22

CBeck113 wrote: ↑

14 Nov 2017, 13:53

All this while meeting current emissions regulations. I do not understand how people can belittle such engineering by comparing it to a tuned engine: the one-off tuned engine will not do 150k miles under warranty, but will most likely explode within the next 20k (which is expected and accepted by the owner)...the ZR-1 engine, like all others from a manufacturer, is subject to warranty, which smaller companies like Ferrari can "circumvent" by demanding deep engine services (valve play as an example) at a ridiculously early interval which only a supercar owner will accept and pay.

krisfx wrote: ↑

15 Nov 2017, 09:22

I compared it against the specific output (arguably a good measure of performance on engines with different sizes) of an F20C engine, which is a standard Honda engine and most are on over 100,000m / 160,000km and still running strong.

And you are correct, but where's the direct replacement for it, since being discontinued in 2009? The Type R motor is now 2.4l and produces 240hp, so I will go out on a limb here and say that Honda back-peddled for the sake of reliability (remember, it is vastly cheaper to produce a "lower spec" engine). If it was only about making a monster engine, then we'd see monsters from every brand, but since making cars is a business, the engines will suit the business needs, even when put into a Corvette ZR-1.

krisfx wrote: ↑

15 Nov 2017, 09:22

I don't understand how US car companies need so much displacement and a massive supercharger to get any form of power.

Why not, it's cheap and quite robust - saves costs later. The supercharger simply feeds the huge volume more oxygen to burn, making a relatively inefficient engine much better.

I'm an engineer, I'm aware of supercharging. When companies as small as Koenigsegg are finding 300hp more with 1.2L less, it just doesn't make sense. It seems to be just a "more is better" thought process. Economically, they're probably awful too, so I'm not sure what, if anything their technology is driving...

Just_a_fan wrote: ↑

15 Nov 2017, 10:44

I bet the ZR-1 will sound absolutely fabulous - US V8s are rightly well known for the sound they make.

krisfx wrote: ↑

15 Nov 2017, 16:58

CBeck113 wrote: ↑

15 Nov 2017, 16:26

krisfx wrote: ↑

15 Nov 2017, 09:22

And you are correct, but where's the direct replacement for it, since being discontinued in 2009? The Type R motor is now 2.4l and produces 240hp, so I will go out on a limb here and say that Honda back-peddled for the sake of reliability (remember, it is vastly cheaper to produce a "lower spec" engine). If it was only about making a monster engine, then we'd see monsters from every brand, but since making cars is a business, the engines will suit the business needs, even when put into a Corvette ZR-1.


Why not, it's cheap and quite robust - saves costs later. The supercharger simply feeds the huge volume more oxygen to burn, making a relatively inefficient engine much better.

I'm an engineer, I'm aware of supercharging. When companies as small as Koenigsegg are finding 300hp more with 1.2L less, it just doesn't make sense. It seems to be just a "more is better" thought process. Economically, they're probably awful too, so I'm not sure what, if anything their technology is driving...

I think you're looking at this from the wrong side, evident through a comparison of Koenigsegg and GM: it is much less expensive to take a solid design concept and "improve" it. Koenigsegg asks about $4mil for a single car....

roon wrote: ↑

16 Nov 2017, 02:15

When will other automakers get around to ditching those byzantine overhead cam setups? They could have a lighter, less top-heavy engine that is a more efficient use of material, with fewer unnecessary components. It's 2017.

CBeck113 wrote: ↑

16 Nov 2017, 08:59

krisfx wrote: ↑

15 Nov 2017, 16:58

CBeck113 wrote: ↑

15 Nov 2017, 16:26

I'm an engineer, I'm aware of supercharging. When companies as small as Koenigsegg are finding 300hp more with 1.2L less, it just doesn't make sense. It seems to be just a "more is better" thought process. Economically, they're probably awful too, so I'm not sure what, if anything their technology is driving...

I think you're looking at this from the wrong side, evident through a comparison of Koenigsegg and GM: it is much less expensive to take a solid design concept and "improve" it. Koenigsegg asks about $4mil for a single car....

Except, evidence has been provided to show that the evolution isn't really that, when even 90s designs were producing a very similar specific output with much better "gas mileage". It doesn't make sense. Again, it's the "bigger is better" mentality of the US car makers.

Also to the person who disliked US V8 sound, I do too.

giantfan10 wrote: ↑

16 Nov 2017, 09:19

roon wrote: ↑

16 Nov 2017, 02:15

When will other automakers get around to ditching those byzantine overhead cam setups? They could have a lighter, less top-heavy engine that is a more efficient use of material, with fewer unnecessary components. It's 2017.

There are several ways to skin a cat and while you continue to insist that your way is the best way said corvette keeps racking up wins in endurance racing against cars with your so called exotic engines.
I love the NA 6.2 Litre V8 in my SUV pumping out 400 hp and 426 ftl bs of torque...it works for me and to each his own

roon wrote: ↑

17 Nov 2017, 01:10

giantfan10 wrote: ↑

16 Nov 2017, 09:19

roon wrote: ↑

16 Nov 2017, 02:15

When will other automakers get around to ditching those byzantine overhead cam setups? They could have a lighter, less top-heavy engine that is a more efficient use of material, with fewer unnecessary components. It's 2017.

There are several ways to skin a cat and while you continue to insist that your way is the best way said corvette keeps racking up wins in endurance racing against cars with your so called exotic engines.
I love the NA 6.2 Litre V8 in my SUV pumping out 400 hp and 426 ftl bs of torque...it works for me and to each his own

Perhaps my satire is poor; we're not in disagreement. Regardless, these OHV vs OHC fanboy battles are but the skirmishes of children wading upon the shallow shores of the Powertrain Pelago. I look down up on all of you from the apex of Mt. Wankel and laugh.

DiogoBrand wrote: ↑

17 Nov 2017, 03:05

roon wrote: ↑

17 Nov 2017, 01:10

giantfan10 wrote: ↑

16 Nov 2017, 09:19

There are several ways to skin a cat and while you continue to insist that your way is the best way said corvette keeps racking up wins in endurance racing against cars with your so called exotic engines.
I love the NA 6.2 Litre V8 in my SUV pumping out 400 hp and 426 ftl bs of torque...it works for me and to each his own

Perhaps my satire is poor; we're not in disagreement. Regardless, these OHV vs OHC fanboy battles are but the skirmishes of children wading upon the shallow shores of the Powertrain Pelago. I look down up on all of you from the apex of Mt. Wankel and laugh.

It's funny how you say it's 2017, but later say you're a rotary fan.
Those two things don't seem two friendly.


Anyway, I think the one thing to be impressed with on american engines is power to cost ratio. If you look at specific output, economy, or any other technical figure they'll be laughable. There's no win/win in engineering, and I don't think there's a way to achieve those massive power figures for that cheap other than using stone age pushrod engines.
I think what created a bit of a discussion is GM trying to showcase their engine as an engineering feat when it's anything but.

giantfan10 wrote: ↑

17 Nov 2017, 08:40

DiogoBrand wrote: ↑

17 Nov 2017, 03:05

roon wrote: ↑

17 Nov 2017, 01:10

Perhaps my satire is poor; we're not in disagreement. Regardless, these OHV vs OHC fanboy battles are but the skirmishes of children wading upon the shallow shores of the Powertrain Pelago. I look down up on all of you from the apex of Mt. Wankel and laugh.

It's funny how you say it's 2017, but later say you're a rotary fan.
Those two things don't seem two friendly.


Anyway, I think the one thing to be impressed with on american engines is power to cost ratio. If you look at specific output, economy, or any other technical figure they'll be laughable. There's no win/win in engineering, and I don't think there's a way to achieve those massive power figures for that cheap other than using stone age pushrod engines.
I think what created a bit of a discussion is GM trying to showcase their engine as an engineering feat when it's anything but.

I think engineering feats where the internal combustion engine is concerned is pretty much a dead issue...its all about profit and loss. If i can make an engine that is durable and cheap to manufacture, why in gods name would i build an exotic engine that is a nighmare to manufacture and maintain??
What you are doing is confusing marketing with reality...
BMW is not the ultimate driving machine.
There is no relentless pursuit of perfection at Lexus
Mercedes..the best or nothing? Nonsense...lol
I lump chevy and their marketing into that group.

DiogoBrand wrote: ↑

17 Nov 2017, 03:05

It's funny how you say...

krisfx wrote: ↑

13 Nov 2017, 18:58

Just_a_fan wrote: ↑

13 Nov 2017, 18:02

krisfx wrote: ↑

13 Nov 2017, 15:28

It's still not an impressive power figure from a supercharged 6.2L engine..

Ferrari made almost that from a naturally aspirated 6.3 V12 several years ago.

Well, the specific output is about 10hp/l more than an S2000... (at a quick glance)