270 horsepower from a 1.6 litre engine?
Discussion
it is the daft attitudes, I want to chin people when they say things like "No, I couldn't buy that one, it has the big engine", about a 1.4 Corsa.
Like your entire financial stability is down to a 200 cc difference on ostensibly the same cars engine, especially when its off someone over 50, sorry, you have failed at life if a 1.4 is too expensive for you to run at 50 ! it isnt like you will be able to have a holiday in the Maldives on the difference.
Then they buy the 1.0 variant and wonder if its broken.
Like your entire financial stability is down to a 200 cc difference on ostensibly the same cars engine, especially when its off someone over 50, sorry, you have failed at life if a 1.4 is too expensive for you to run at 50 ! it isnt like you will be able to have a holiday in the Maldives on the difference.
Then they buy the 1.0 variant and wonder if its broken.
J4CKO said:
it is the daft attitudes, I want to chin people when they say things like "No, I couldn't buy that one, it has the big engine", about a 1.4 Corsa.
Like your entire financial stability is down to a 200 cc difference on ostensibly the same cars engine, especially when its off someone over 50, sorry, you have failed at life if a 1.4 is too expensive for you to run at 50 ! it isnt like you will be able to have a holiday in the Maldives on the difference.
Then they buy the 1.0 variant and wonder if its broken.
It's funny because it's true. Like your entire financial stability is down to a 200 cc difference on ostensibly the same cars engine, especially when its off someone over 50, sorry, you have failed at life if a 1.4 is too expensive for you to run at 50 ! it isnt like you will be able to have a holiday in the Maldives on the difference.
Then they buy the 1.0 variant and wonder if its broken.
Since bikes have been mentioned, I'm surprised noone has brought up the Kawasaki H2R
http://www.autoblog.com/2014/09/30/kawasaki-ninja-...
300hp from a 998cc engine with, I believe, a centrifugal supercharger.
http://www.autoblog.com/2014/09/30/kawasaki-ninja-...
300hp from a 998cc engine with, I believe, a centrifugal supercharger.
VeeFource said:
What's because bike engines aren't turbocharged? That sentence makes no sense.
It does if you actually read the thread.VeeFource said:
I'm saying they don't 'need' to produce as much torque low down as they don't have nearly as much weight to shift. This means you can have a much shorter stroke (thus reducing internal loads) which allows the engine to rev much higher for a given capacity.
When I said high revs I mean like for like, ie the internal loads on 1000cc motorbike engine at 7k rpm are going to be a lot less than a 1000cc car engine which is designed for a much higher torque output (longer stroke etc). That's why you can't compare motorbike engines to car engines!
How can you possibly compare bike engines and car engines "like for like" at the same RPM when one requires far higher RPM to deliver the same power? This is the kind of woolly thinking that is far too common on PH.When I said high revs I mean like for like, ie the internal loads on 1000cc motorbike engine at 7k rpm are going to be a lot less than a 1000cc car engine which is designed for a much higher torque output (longer stroke etc). That's why you can't compare motorbike engines to car engines!
Acceleration is produced by the torque delivered to the driving wheel(s), not that made at the flywheel of an engine. A bike needs a physically small engine, and preferably one that is as light as possible so large displacement engines are typically not a good fit. Instead they use compact, small displacement engines and to produce the power required for the sports bike they are in a high state of tune (very high by car standards). A 1000cc bike engine is only just getting into it's stride at 7000 RPM, modern litre bikes produce peak power at more like 12,000-13,000RPM and a 600cc supersports bike might rev out to 16,000RPM. If you think the stresses in these engine are low, then you should think again.
Because the torque multiplier (a.k.a. gearbox) was invented quite some time ago, you can have the same amount of torque delivered to the driving wheel(s) by a 200bhp/80 lbft 1.0 litre engine as by a 200bhp/300 lbft 3.0 litre engine. Arguments about low down torque are therefore meaningless - a bike engine could power an HGV if the gearing was suitable, but fuel consumption and longevity would be an issue. Likewise if you wedged a big V8 into a bike (it has been done) then the overall gearing would be need to be changed to reduce the torque multiplication.
The implied issue of shorter stroke meaning lower torque is also rubbish. Larger bores permit larger valve sizes which improve the ultimate power capability of an engine if you want to exploit it (which you do in the case of a sports bike engine), but it doesn't mean a short stroke is a root cause of low torque. For a given cylinder displacement and all other things being equal, the bore/stroke ratio makes relatively little difference to torque.
robinessex said:
Each rev of the engine produces a positive and negative inertia load in the engine. Both the piston and the conrod see a compresion and tension load, whilst the crank sees varying torsion loads. These loads far exceed combustion loads, and they increase as the square of the rpm. At the top of the tree, the old +20,000rpm F1 engines produced acceleration levels of 10,000g!!! That's 10,000 times the mass seen as a force. Back of an envelope calc give a piston 'mass' at full chat of circa 2,500kg !!!
Here's a (relatively) easy to use engine sim that works out all sorts of power, torque, fuel consumption and piston loadings from a range of input parameters: http://blackartdynamics.com/Engine/EngineThermodyn...Creating a 270bhp 1.6 really isn't that hard, you just crank up the boost and set the compression ratio, ignition timing etc to keep the PCP manageable.
If you want a challenge, try getting 200lbft out of a 2 litre NASP engine using realistic values for everything...
Mr2Mike said:
The implied issue of shorter stroke meaning lower torque is also rubbish. Larger bores permit larger valve sizes which improve the ultimate power capability of an engine if you want to exploit it (which you do in the case of a sports bike engine), but it doesn't mean a short stroke is a root cause of low torque. For a given cylinder displacement and all other things being equal, the bore/stroke ratio makes relatively little difference to torque.
Nice to see someone understands this point! Long stroke = more torque is a misonomer. Longer stroke with a fixed bore = more torque, yes. But really that's a case of more capacity = more torque. Longer stroke with a proportionally reduced bore (i.e. same capacity) = same torque.
Edited by Kozy on Thursday 2nd October 14:17
Edited by Kozy on Thursday 2nd October 14:18
I'm not entirely persuaded by the "tiny engine so it fits in a small car" thing. I cant think of many cars (above a tiny city car) that could not accommodate very easily a NA 6 cyl, even the ones that exist now and leaving aside how much smaller (if you wanted to) you could make a 3 litre engine. Also, how much lighter is a 1.0 engine than a 2.0 engine? Not much in it in the context of cars that almost always weigh over 1200kg.
CarAbuser said:
zeppelin101 said:
You have to drive a small engined car in a different manner to a larger engined one to extract the economy from it.
My mum averages 40mpg round town in her ecoboost Focus. My dad gets 50mpg out of it on a longer run.
Can't say I've ever found a V8 that manages anything like 40mpg day to day.
I did the same trip two weeks back-to-back.My mum averages 40mpg round town in her ecoboost Focus. My dad gets 50mpg out of it on a longer run.
Can't say I've ever found a V8 that manages anything like 40mpg day to day.
First week in an ecoboost fiesta and second in my own car.
Both cars used exactly the same fuel for the week. I couldn't find the trip computer on the Fiesta but my car was showing 30mpg.
It's not as if I was beating on the car. It just seemed to drink fuel on a 80mph motorway cruise.
There's quite a few Golf R owners complaining about the fact they are only getting a fraction of the promised fuel economy.
I've got one in Focus form and even doing 80mph it will return around 40mpg and nearer 50mpg at 70mph (granted this is still well below official figures). I had a 1.6 Focus before hand with the same power output and the difference is night and day. Not only is it more economical, it feels more torquey (sp?) and is just more refined than that asthmatic old clunker that I previously had.
Longevity is a question mark for the future but the likes of Ford are sticking variants of these engines into virtually everything so you'd think they'd have done their homework as it seems they've bet the house on these new generation of engines. (And yes I have read that other thread!).
Courtenay Sport will empty your pocket of almost £10,000 and in return will give you a Corsa VXR making 380hp. Some tuners have 400+hp on the same engine. Granted it's hardly stock, with forged crank and pistons, custom inlet/outlet manifolds with a bigger turbo, a full exahust system and an uprated clutch. It's still a 1.6 corsa though.
Similarly I know of a tuner on the Fiesta ST forums who has a Fiesta ST with 340hp (or somewhere near there), on stock internals. I think he even has a stock exhaust - though I'll need to verify that. Again, 1.6 turbo.
Still FWD though....
Similarly I know of a tuner on the Fiesta ST forums who has a Fiesta ST with 340hp (or somewhere near there), on stock internals. I think he even has a stock exhaust - though I'll need to verify that. Again, 1.6 turbo.
Still FWD though....
Mr2Mike said:
VeeFource said:
What's because bike engines aren't turbocharged? That sentence makes no sense.
It does if you actually read the thread.Mr2Mike said:
VeeFource said:
I'm saying they don't 'need' to produce as much torque low down as they don't have nearly as much weight to shift. This means you can have a much shorter stroke (thus reducing internal loads) which allows the engine to rev much higher for a given capacity.
When I said high revs I mean like for like, ie the internal loads on 1000cc motorbike engine at 7k rpm are going to be a lot less than a 1000cc car engine which is designed for a much higher torque output (longer stroke etc). That's why you can't compare motorbike engines to car engines!
How can you possibly compare bike engines and car engines "like for like" at the same RPM when one requires far higher RPM to deliver the same power?When I said high revs I mean like for like, ie the internal loads on 1000cc motorbike engine at 7k rpm are going to be a lot less than a 1000cc car engine which is designed for a much higher torque output (longer stroke etc). That's why you can't compare motorbike engines to car engines!
Mr2Mike said:
This is the kind of woolly thinking that is far too common on PH.
Acceleration is produced by the torque delivered to the driving wheel(s), not that made at the flywheel of an engine. A bike needs a physically small engine, and preferably one that is as light as possible so large displacement engines are typically not a good fit. Instead they use compact, small displacement engines and to produce the power required for the sports bike they are in a high state of tune (very high by car standards). A 1000cc bike engine is only just getting into it's stride at 7000 RPM, modern litre bikes produce peak power at more like 12,000-13,000RPM and a 600cc supersports bike might rev out to 16,000RPM. If you think the stresses in these engine are low, then you should think again.
Wrong, acceleration is measured in meters/second/second. Notice the time elements? Power is torque x angular velocity where velocity results from distance/time, so that is what is producing the acceleration. Torque does nothing on its own - it's the same as having your handbrake on parked on a hill. The wheel is subject to a torque but as it's not moving, you're not going anywhere.Acceleration is produced by the torque delivered to the driving wheel(s), not that made at the flywheel of an engine. A bike needs a physically small engine, and preferably one that is as light as possible so large displacement engines are typically not a good fit. Instead they use compact, small displacement engines and to produce the power required for the sports bike they are in a high state of tune (very high by car standards). A 1000cc bike engine is only just getting into it's stride at 7000 RPM, modern litre bikes produce peak power at more like 12,000-13,000RPM and a 600cc supersports bike might rev out to 16,000RPM. If you think the stresses in these engine are low, then you should think again.
Wrong again on the bike engine sizing also. Yes they obviously want to be as small as possible (as with any vehicle) but it's the low torque demands that mean you don't need a large capacity or turbocharged engine. You design a vehicle with the first priority being the engine fitting the demand over the engine conforming to constraints (as then you design the vehicle to accommodate these constraints as much as possible). It is a compromise, but what you've stated is not the main driver.
I've already said I was referring to the stresses at 7k rpm not flat out. Read the post!
Mr2Mike said:
Because the torque multiplier (a.k.a. gearbox) was invented quite some time ago, you can have the same amount of torque delivered to the driving wheel(s) by a 200bhp/80 lbft 1.0 litre engine as by a 200bhp/300 lbft 3.0 litre engine. Arguments about low down torque are therefore meaningless - a bike engine could power an HGV if the gearing was suitable, but fuel consumption and longevity would be an issue. Likewise if you wedged a big V8 into a bike (it has been done) then the overall gearing would be need to be changed to reduce the torque multiplication.
You clearly don't understand the concept of torque vs power. Fuel consumption and longevity are not the main issues with using a motorbike engine to power a HGV, power is what moves things and a 150bhp motorcycle engine won't get the HGV up to a decent speed. As you say, you can gear it down which will get the HGV moving but given most HGVs have 300+bhp, then you're never going to get to a good speed.Mr2Mike said:
The implied issue of shorter stroke meaning lower torque is also rubbish. Larger bores permit larger valve sizes which improve the ultimate power capability of an engine if you want to exploit it (which you do in the case of a sports bike engine), but it doesn't mean a short stroke is a root cause of low torque. For a given cylinder displacement and all other things being equal, the bore/stroke ratio makes relatively little difference to torque.
I've taken enough time to help you learn (which I normally charge a good rate for as a Design Engineer) so if you still choose to ignore what I've said then that's up to you. At least I tried
There are in reality only a few things that dramatically effect fuel consumption from an engine
Compression ratio - the higher it is the more bang (or torque) per amount of fuel used
Heat loss & friction - Smaller capacity loses less heat to cylinder walls & pistons, less cylinders is less friction, larger ones more, rotaries don't even go there!
Which can be defined as BSFC which most often is published in a graph
Combine gearing & Cda (aerodynamics x frontal area) rolling losses are a tiny percentage of the MPG equation unless at drive cycle speeds & hey presto you have the reality of Xmpg at Xmph
Compression ratio - the higher it is the more bang (or torque) per amount of fuel used
Heat loss & friction - Smaller capacity loses less heat to cylinder walls & pistons, less cylinders is less friction, larger ones more, rotaries don't even go there!
Which can be defined as BSFC which most often is published in a graph
Combine gearing & Cda (aerodynamics x frontal area) rolling losses are a tiny percentage of the MPG equation unless at drive cycle speeds & hey presto you have the reality of Xmpg at Xmph
IanCress said:
robinessex said:
IanCress said:
To be fair, 10 or 20 years ago a car like the RCZ-R wouldn't be possible. If you wanted 270bhp from an engine back then, you'd have to stick a 4 Litre V8 under the bonnet, which wouldn't be possible in a car the size of the Peugeot. Same goes for all the modern 250-300bhp hot hatches.
Not True. The Turbo F1 era produced 1,500 bhp from 1.5LTRS. Easy to detune down to 270bhp. Once an engine is supercharged by any means, it's size becomes irrelevant. It's just a fuel digesting device. The more you stuff in, the more bhp that comes out. You don't revs either.Anyway the 15-20 year old Nissan 200sx could be tuned to circa 280bhp with nothing but a bit of extra boost and better breathing with absolutely no drop in reliability. Alright it was a 2litre, but the engine could be pushed a lot further on standard internals, above the 170bhp per ton of the Peugot still with only extra fueling, bigger turbo. Reliability issues didn't really kick in as long as cooling and things like that were also upgraded. Once you got above about 400bhp then things started to get a bit more problematic - but that's >200bhp per litre.
Edited by sparkyhx on Thursday 2nd October 20:06
These threads about this new fangled turbo charging make me laugh. I can't think of any heavy duty diesel that isn't turbo charged. It's exactly the same principal, more power from the same displacement and these are engines that have to work extremely hard for a living. Car engines get a very easy ride, they don't spend hours and sometimes days at full load, they don't get any shock loads and you can't be running flat out down a road and hit a hill of such steepness that it stalls the engine within a coupe of seconds.
aeropilot said:
Back in 2000, Saab were claiming 230hp out of their revolutionary variable compression ratio development engine, and that was a supercharged 1.6L 5 cyl engine, so 270hp some decade and a half later seems logical progress.
In a decade and a half they didn't manage to bring their revolutionary variable compression ratio engine to market did they?
sparkyhx said:
Anyway the 15-20 year old Nissan 200sx could be tuned to circa 280bhp with nothing but a bit of extra boost and better breathing with absolutely no drop in reliability.
No drop in reliability on UK fuel, in UK environmental conditions, with very lenient emissions regulations, NVH & power delivery requirments etc.... Although it clearly holds together, and I would tune one the same if it was mine, a large manufacturer simply couldn't get away with it. Edited by sparkyhx on Thursday 2nd October 20:06
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff