V8 engines are disappearing

All that has to do with the power train, gearbox, clutch, fuels and lubricants, etc. Generally the mechanical side of Formula One.
User avatar
Ciro Pabón
106
Joined: 11 May 2005, 00:31

V8 engines are disappearing

Post

Well, you have to wonder why F1 choose to use this engine... :)

“It’s pretty clear that the V-8 is on its way out of the mainstream,”
-- Ford’s chairman, William Clay Ford Jr. --

“That cancellation (NOTE: cancellation of a new V8 engine project) was a direct result of the 35-mile-per-gallon legislation,”
-- Robert A. Lutz, G.M.’s vice chairman --

"... sales of V-8 engines in the United States have dropped 24 percent since 2004"
-- Auto research firm R. L. Polk & Company --

Blue line shows new V8 engines in USA
Image

“There’s a new group of young customers that may not appreciate or care what the Hemi does,” (hi, guys! :))
-- Chrysler vice chairman, James E. Press --

“The era of indulgence is over... When oil goes to $100 a barrel, the romance of a V-8 under the hood diminishes pretty quickly.”
-- John A. Casesa, managing partner, Casesa Shapiro Group --

Do you think F1 will use a V6 anytime soon? Turbocharged, btw? Yes, yes, I know engine regulations are frozen, but the world isn't... ;)
Ciro

manchild
manchild
12
Joined: 03 Jun 2005, 10:54

Re: V8 engines are disappearing

Post

I was told so more than 20 years ago :)

:arrow: http://c64s.com/game/2050/last_v8,_the/

Image

geoclassic
geoclassic
0
Joined: 01 Oct 2006, 03:17
Location: Baltimore, Maryland

Re: V8 engines are disappearing

Post

HMMMM, V-6 turbos, sounds familar. Why not a diesel? Going Green anyone?

mx_tifoso
mx_tifoso
0
Joined: 30 Nov 2006, 05:01
Location: North America

Re: V8 engines are disappearing

Post

What about an I6 turbo diesel :?: The Cummins I6 Turbo Diesel found in the Dodge Ram 2500/3500.

Wikipedia- Cummins B6.7:
The B6.7 is the latest version of the B Series. It is currently the largest inline-6 engine produced for a light duty truck. It produces 350 hp (261 kW) and 650 ft·lbf (881 N·m) in the 2007.5 and newer Dodge 2500/3500 pickup trucks with the Chrysler built 6 speed 68RFE Automatic Transmission. Engine output is slightly reduced with the Mercedes G56 6-speed manual transmission at 305 hp (227 kW) and 610 ft·lbf (827 N·m). The 2007 and newer 3500 Cab & Chassis trucks only get the 305 hp (227 kW) and 610 ft·lbf (827 N·m) version of the B6.7 whether it has the Aisin AS68RC or the Mercedes G56 6-speed manual transmission. As for the 2008 4500/5500 medium duty Chassis Cabs, they will also receive the 305 hp (227 kW) and 610 ft·lbf (827 N·m) version of the B6.7 whether it has the Aisin AS68RC or the Mercedes G56 6-speed manual transmission.

It includes a cooled EGR system, variable geometry turbocharger, a new higher-pressure version of the Bosch direct-injection fuel system, a stock 4 gallon oil pan to increase oil change intervals, and a particulate filter designed to reduce diesel particulate matter by more than 90%
This engine is used in heavy duty applications here in North America (AFAIK). And it competes in a share of the heavy duty market where diesel V8's are very popular. So I guess I decided to post this specific engine in this thread because it goes along with Ciro's original idea, that V8's are becoming a little less popular and that engines with less cylinders are growing in popularity.

Although there are other vehicles such as the BMW E92 M3 that go against this theory, and instead of remaining with a 6 cylinder or smaller engine, they have changed to a V8 instead. The E46 M3 had a 3.2 I6, and the new E92 has a 4.0 V8.

For the most part, V8's should be installed only on vehicles which are used for work applications, both light and heavy duty. Otherwise, 6 cylinders or less are recommended.

My two cents.
Forum guide: read before posting

"You do it, then it's done." - Kimi Räikkönen

Por las buenas soy amigo, por las malas soy campeón.

Belatti
Belatti
33
Joined: 10 Jul 2007, 21:48
Location: Argentina

Re: V8 engines are disappearing

Post

“There’s a new group of young customers that may not appreciate or care what the Hemi does,” (hi, guys! )
-- Chrysler vice chairman, James E. Press --
Yes we do! WASTE FUEL! :lol: :lol: :lol:

I they want so sell V8 engines they should make them like F1: 2.4 Litres!
"You need great passion, because everything you do with great pleasure, you do well." -Juan Manuel Fangio

"I have no idols. I admire work, dedication and competence." -Ayrton Senna

riff_raff
riff_raff
132
Joined: 24 Dec 2004, 10:18

Re: V8 engines are disappearing

Post

Racing engines have different requirements than production automotive engines.

The demands of a racing engine generally dictate that if you require 6 cylinders or more, then you will likely want a "V" configuration engine. And if you have a stressed engine chassis (like an F1 car), then you most definitely don't want an in-line engine, because it's not going to be torsionally stiff enough. You would have to add subframes around it to make it work properly.

As for a production automotive engine, cost is king! An in-line OHC engine has half the number of cams, cylinder heads, exhaust manifols, etc. as a "V" type engine of the same number of cylinders (ie. an I6 vs. a V6). An in-line engine is also much easier and cheaper to machine, since all of the cylinders are in a row. And most importantly, production automotive engines are designed for fuel efficiency, and not maximum power. A small number of large displacement cylinders running slowly, is far more efficient (but unfortunately less exciting) than a large number of small displacement running at very high speeds.
"Q: How do you make a small fortune in racing?
A: Start with a large one!"

fastback33
fastback33
0
Joined: 29 Aug 2007, 08:45

Re: V8 engines are disappearing

Post

Belatti wrote:
“There’s a new group of young customers that may not appreciate or care what the Hemi does,” (hi, guys! )
-- Chrysler vice chairman, James E. Press --
Yes we do! WASTE FUEL! :lol: :lol: :lol:

I they want so sell V8 engines they should make them like F1: 2.4 Litres!

+1

Instead of just tossing the design into the garbage. Why can't the big three develope a small liter, decent horsepower and good fuel economy engine? It can't be that hard if they got some help from f1 technology...

User avatar
Ciro Pabón
106
Joined: 11 May 2005, 00:31

Re: V8 engines are disappearing

Post

Well, I put a smiley after the comment "... why F1 choose to use this engine" because I thought that the Reason (with capital R) was clear.

My Reason went like this: I did not think secondary modes of vibration allow a V6 engine (at a reasonable cost) to reach 19.000 rpm. I thought that changing to a V6 would be a major task, because of inherent vibration limitations, that in turn limit the rpms affordable. After all, a V6 is like 2 V3s, with the imbalance it implies.

Then I read for ten minutes and discovered that modern V8 racing engines are all flatplanes! So, they require a balancing axle... Now, I'm back to square one. Can somebody explain why would F1 choose a V8 that vibrates more? I mean, beyond the evident (the counterweights in the crossplane and the inertia they imply). If isn't that the reason, then why use an engine that requires balancing shafts? :(

Crossplane (90 degrees between crankpins, Mercedes AMG, hefty 6.3 liters)
Image

Crossplane schema
Image

Flatplane (180 degrees between crankpins)
Image

Flatplane schema
Image

As for riff_raff comments, I'd say that from the point of view of vibrations, is preferible to use a 6 in-line. It vibrates even less than a V8. Yes, I know vibration is not the only issue, but I had a 6 in-line that I repaired like four or five times. The car died, but the engine.... what an engine!
Ciro

ACRO
ACRO
7
Joined: 21 Sep 2006, 22:25

Re: V8 engines are disappearing

Post

very nice views of the cross and flatplane crankshaft. you see at the flatplane v8 that indeed the pistons of each bank travel like in the inline 4. the inner two move simulatany and the outer two move simulatany. in the inline 4 you would have an firing order of 1342. do you know the firing order of a flat v8? some myths are that at a flat v8 two cylinders fire simulany, but i think its not thrue. two cylinders are indeed at TDC, but one at the axhaust on the other at compression/ingnition.

cheers!

User avatar
Ciro Pabón
106
Joined: 11 May 2005, 00:31

Re: V8 engines are disappearing

Post

Well, this is the numbering:

Image

And this is the possible firing order:

Image

http://craig.backfire.ca/pages/autos/v8-engines
Ciro

NeiNastran
NeiNastran
0
Joined: 03 Mar 2008, 22:04

Re: V8 engines are disappearing

Post

I was always told that the more moving parts the inefficient the design. On that note check this engine design out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cylindrical_Energy_Module

Conceptual
Conceptual
0
Joined: 15 Nov 2007, 03:33

Re: V8 engines are disappearing

Post

Where are the 60lb turbocharged 650cc Rotary engines running on vegetable oil?

We've been had!

Chris

Conceptual
Conceptual
0
Joined: 15 Nov 2007, 03:33

Re: V8 engines are disappearing

Post

NeiNastran wrote:I was always told that the more moving parts the inefficient the design. On that note check this engine design out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cylindrical_Energy_Module
http://www.epindustries.com/intro_pdx.html

That looks an AWEFUL lot like this:

http://www.regtech.com/

Anyways, I still want veggie engines!

Chris

Carlos
Carlos
11
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 19:43
Location: Canada

Re: V8 engines are disappearing

Post

Welcome to the Forum NeiNastran. Brilliant post. Usually as a Grumpy Old Man :D I would have said put it in our alternate engine thread. Pardon me. :D The company and inventor - Eddie Paul - EP Industries could fit easily into 10 F1T threads. The CEM could be an engine, turbocharger, supercharger, hydraulic 'engine' along the lines of the hydristor, KERS. Conceptual, don't quibble on having the corner on all concepts :D Nothing is completely new except maybe a time machine patent. :D This is a really interesting device/engine and company, The CEM is already being used by the US military to cool airborne lasers, now thats a high capacity pump, the US seals use it on decontamination pumps, 3 gallons a minute on a cordless Dewalt drill. :!: Conceptual, everything looks like something else :D Eddie Paul does everything from a 3D lens systems to a replica shark/submarine for Cousteau so they can swim among great white shark :!: To custom cars for the movie Cars To enhanced 3D effects for the movie Cars to a new design for an English wheel so you can bang out body panels in your garage :D , to a video on pin stripping. This guy Eddie Paul is all over the map and really could inspire anyone. :D . The CEM as an engine is being considered for the Dusenberg 8 project designed by Jeff Teague. Theres a car designer with credentials . Heres an excerpt from an article about the CEM being used as an internal combustion engine.

The conventional IC engine design must meet a fine balance between effective piston-to-wall sealing and engine failure due to piston-to-wall friction. This balance is a unique science of metallurgy and expansion/compatibility coefficients of known materials. A minute amount of compression loss into the crankcase is acceptable providing the allowed Delta Pressure is not disproportionate as with a set of worn rings creating excessive leakage. This blow-by constitutes a normal loss of compression and volume, which must be vented from the crankcase into the atmosphere. As running time accumulates, however, and ring/cylinder wall deterioration creates an abnormal volume of pressure loss into the crankcase, a major overhaul or engine failure becomes eminent.

The CEM assembly is radically different in this concept since venting of the cylinder block is not required, hence, total combustion efficiency is achieved. This occurs through compression chamber pressure equalization. The CEM engine’s compression/power stroke builds pressure within the cylinder block until it becomes equal to the combustion chamber pressure. A gas pressure seal is formed thereby sealing the combustion chamber as high-pressure flows to a low-pressure area.

The cylinder and pistons are the only moving parts in the CEM engine; a 6-piston/12-cylinder CEM therefore has 7 internal moving parts. When you consider the myriad rods, bearings, pins, shafts, and valves at motion within a conventional four-stroke engine or even a rotary-piston engine, it is not difficult to understand where the CEM gains its performance and durability advantages. Two 360-degree sleeve halves enclose the CEM piston/cylinder assembly. The inner edges of the two sleeves meet to form a concentrically located sinusoidal guide path or camtrack.. This camtrack serves as a guide for the CEM piston’s fixed drive pins to follow. As the cylinder spins, the piston reflects the path of the camtrack, so the degree and frequency of stroke becomes a precise element of the CEM’s sinusoidal design or “grind” (See Cam Assembly illustration above).

The CEM’s length of stroke is determined by the degree of zenith on either side of the camtrack’s center. As the drive pin guides the piston from one zenith to the other, the cylinder block rotates each cylinder into port alignment. The CEM cycle minimizes the intake-compression-power-exhaust pulsations, which are separated along the sinusoidal path to provide a very smooth transition of air/fuel mixture to power.


Normally, the function of introducing an air/fuel mixture would occur through intake manifolding to a cylinder head with a series of cam/pushrod-activated intake and exhaust valves controlling the flow of air and fuel until burned gases exit through an exhaust manifold. An efficient 6-cylinder engine typically uses a 24-valve (4 valves per cylinder) arrangement requiring dual camshafts and critical valve lash adjustments. The CEM relegates this entire process to passive intake and exhaust ports located in the cylinder heads that cap each end of the cylinder/piston/sleeve assembly.

The CEM uses two end plates, or cylinder heads, that combine the functions of intake and exhaust porting, intake manifolding, and combustion chambering (i.e. location of glow plug). Each CEM head contains one intake port and one exhaust port. The diameter of each of these ports precisely matches the diameter of the six identical bores in the cylinder. As the cylinder block rotates, each bore intermittently aligns with an intake or exhaust port depending on the cycle. The spacing between each bore is precisely equivalent to the bore diameter, meaning that each stroke of the cycle occurs without overlap. Also, because the cylinder head ports effectively match the diameter of the bores, volumetric efficiency is maximized with a virtually unrestricted air/fuel-exhaust flow.

Once again. Welcome to the Forum NeiNastran.

Image

User avatar
checkered
0
Joined: 02 Mar 2007, 14:32

Re: V8 engines are disappearing

Post

Carlos wrote:Usually as a Grumpy Old Man :D I would have said put it in our alternate engine thread. Pardon me.
You're still welcome to

do that, even if I've neglected the thread out of the limitations on my time (and other similarly convincing excuses) - to the degree that I will have to compare my links to the content on that thread to avoid future double posts. I believe even the CEM was there, waiting its turn (... sigh). Well, it's a good thing it came up. The variety of engines (more or less real) is truly bewildering. F1 is going to be faced with that in no time at all and I'll be interested in seeing if the chosen solutions have come up in one of our prior conversations already. The CEM would seem to fit the bill of an engine in which (pneumatic/hydraulic) regenerative functions can easily be integrated. I can also easily see it as a "lean" generator unit running at optimal revs while the power would be stored and put to good use through a wholly electric powertrain.

Coming back to Ciro's bewildernment at seeing all racing V8s being flatplanes, perhaps you've already investigated the thing by yourself but for the sake of the argument (and in trying to cajole the local engine gurus to weigh in) I'll recount the two main reasons I've seen repeated over and over again. Certainly not things of my own devising but stuff that has "stuck" with me along the way from various sources.

- Cross planes' unbalanced firing order, to be tuned optimally, would apparently require the exhausts from different banks to be crossed with each other. Higher revs require shorter manifolds, which speaks for the flat plane configuration with separate banks of pipes and less exhaust flow restrictions.
- A cross plane crankshaft is more heavily weighted (due to its first order imbalance), also limiting revs. I guess in simplistic terms you could say that a flat plane out-weighs the cross plane, because it's more responsive due to less inertia (especially as F1's displacement is relatively low for a V8). It just involves taking the good with the bad and accepting some of the second order vibrations with apparently a lower attached weight/inefficiency cost.

I have to confess that I don't even know what kinds of balancing shafts contemporary F1 engine designers might want to use - I guess preferrably none and that might well continue to be the case. (I've read that Mugen Honda V10s had balance shafts, it was mentioned as somewhat of an exception at the time.) There are so many directional forces and even gas induced forces to consider. Modeling damping through all the structures of the car to avoid structurally dangerous interference/resonance (anywhere) can't be easy for there must be a bewildering amount of variables. The engines do tend to run at top 19.000 for long times, something that must have an effect on these considerations though.

Curiously, in theory a 90° flat plane V8 balances the first order of vibrations, but it's a matter of whether you want to put those forces through the crank (and bearings and other related structures, perhaps transforming the forces to something more unpredictable) or just balance each cylinder individually. Seeing examples of current F1 shafts I guess the engine manufacturers have drawn their own conclusions and added a little counterweight, but apparently not enough to make cross plane an attractive option. I hope someone can elaborate on this, even appreciating just how complicated it gets beyond simplistic models and basic ideas.