New ZR1 uses reactivity controlled combustion.

Breaking news, useful data or technical highlights or vehicles that are not meant to race. You can post commercial vehicle news or developments here.
Please post topics on racing variants in "other racing categories".
CBeck113
CBeck113
51
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2013 6:43 pm

Re: New ZR1 uses reactivity controlled combustion.

Post

krisfx wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 8:22 am
CBeck113 wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 12:53 pm
bill shoe wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 1:14 am
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. :o
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:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 8:22 am
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:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 8:22 am
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.
“Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!” Monty Python and the Holy Grail

krisfx
krisfx
14
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 10:07 pm

Re: New ZR1 uses reactivity controlled combustion.

Post

CBeck113 wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:26 pm
krisfx wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 8:22 am
CBeck113 wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 12:53 pm


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:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 8:22 am
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:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 8:22 am
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...

Cold Fussion
Cold Fussion
93
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2010 3:51 am

Re: New ZR1 uses reactivity controlled combustion.

Post

Just_a_fan wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 9:44 am
I bet the ZR-1 will sound absolutely fabulous - US V8s are rightly well known for the sound they make. =D>
I must be the only person in the world who isn't a massive fan of the sound of a crossplane V8. In any case the supercharger whine will drown out the V8 a lot.

roon
roon
412
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2016 6:04 pm

Re: New ZR1 uses reactivity controlled combustion.

Post

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
CBeck113
51
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2013 6:43 pm

Re: New ZR1 uses reactivity controlled combustion.

Post

krisfx wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:58 pm
CBeck113 wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:26 pm
krisfx wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 8:22 am




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....
“Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!” Monty Python and the Holy Grail

giantfan10
giantfan10
27
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2014 5:05 pm
Location: USA

Re: New ZR1 uses reactivity controlled combustion.

Post

roon wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 1:15 am
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

krisfx
krisfx
14
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 10:07 pm

Re: New ZR1 uses reactivity controlled combustion.

Post

CBeck113 wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 7:59 am
krisfx wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:58 pm
CBeck113 wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:26 pm


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.

Maritimer
Maritimer
19
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2017 8:45 pm
Location: Canada

Re: New ZR1 uses reactivity controlled combustion.

Post

Noticed a few mentions of overhead cams here- the LT4 is a pushrod engine, not dual cam

roon
roon
412
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2016 6:04 pm

Re: New ZR1 uses reactivity controlled combustion.

Post

giantfan10 wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 8:19 am
roon wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 1:15 am
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.

User avatar
strad
117
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 12:57 am

Re: New ZR1 uses reactivity controlled combustion.

Post

I haven't noticed has anyone pointed out that I can toss grandma the keys to run up and get something from the store and that I can have it worked on by any Chevy dealer at somewhat reasonable rates. :wink:
To achieve anything, you must be prepared to dabble on the boundary of disaster.”
Sir Stirling Moss

User avatar
DiogoBrand
68
Joined: Thu May 14, 2015 6:02 pm
Location: Brazil

Re: New ZR1 uses reactivity controlled combustion.

Post

roon wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 12:10 am
giantfan10 wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 8:19 am
roon wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 1:15 am
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.
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
giantfan10
27
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2014 5:05 pm
Location: USA

Re: New ZR1 uses reactivity controlled combustion.

Post

DiogoBrand wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 2:05 am
roon wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 12:10 am
giantfan10 wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 8:19 am

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.
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.

User avatar
DiogoBrand
68
Joined: Thu May 14, 2015 6:02 pm
Location: Brazil

Re: New ZR1 uses reactivity controlled combustion.

Post

giantfan10 wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 7:40 am
DiogoBrand wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 2:05 am
roon wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 12:10 am


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.
Well, in my opinion, balancing profit and loss is an engineering feat on itself. Building an engine is relatively easy, building an engine that meets all regulations, has acceptable performance, all of this while generating the biggest possible profit, not so much. It takes a lot of engineering to make a profitable engine

But to be honest I always questioned why engines are getting more and more complex. Emissions are just a joke, you get a fraction of the freight ships in the world and they pollute more than all cars combined. Ok you get more fuel mileage, but you also pay a lot of money for your car just because it has an engine capable of saving 5% more fuel, not to mention maintenance, which becomes three times as expensive just because they had to make your engine as complex as a space ship to save that 5% of fuel.

roon
roon
412
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2016 6:04 pm

Re: New ZR1 uses reactivity controlled combustion.

Post

DiogoBrand wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 2:05 am
It's funny how you say...
Good, that was the intent.

User avatar
VARIANT | one
5
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2016 11:56 pm
Location: St. Petersburg, FL, USA

Re: New ZR1 uses reactivity controlled combustion.

Post

krisfx wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 5:58 pm
Just_a_fan wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 5:02 pm
krisfx wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 2:28 pm
It's still not an impressive power figure from a supercharged 6.2L engine.. :wtf:
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)
While specific output shows impressive engineering to some extent, the laws of physics don't care about such academic topics as the mass is being accelerated. Power-to-weight ratio is more pertinent, to which the LS series motors are rather impressive. Knock the OHV design if you want, but it's light per bhp and has a low Cg. These are real-world good things. Dry sump it and it would be even more appealing.

It's always annoyed me that power-to-weight hasn't been a more talked about standard for motors than specific output. :wtf: