RE: Camaro heads for 500bhp
Discussion
Ed. said:
This whole efficiency discussion is getting a little tiring, I am guessing it stems from the belief that larger engines equals worse fuel economy which in most cases is true. But does a race tuned 4ish litre v8 really use that much less fuel than a lazier 6ish litre v8 on a daily basis for simular outputs?
Larger engines can be teamed up with very tall gearing, which gives great mileage. Just look at American V8 powered cars. Conversely, high HP/L engined cars need very short gearing, which helps explain the terrible fuel consumption of the new M3 that Steve Sutcliffe mentioned in Autocar and in his blog.Miguel
Ed. said:
This whole efficiency discussion is getting a little tiring, I am guessing it stems from the belief that larger engines equals worse fuel economy which in most cases is true. But does a race tuned 4ish litre v8 really use that much less fuel than a lazier 6ish litre v8 on a daily basis for simular outputs?
Damn right, people get so het up about bhp/litre stats that they seem to forget that numbers are just that, they dont make you go down the road there just words scribbled on paper, the noise, power an the way it transmits that power are whats important thats what you feel behind the wheelPeople tend to take bhp/ltr as a standard for engineering when referring to the more premium/sports models. Modern, mostly european engines tend to be the magic 100bhp/1ltr figure. I have no idea why, I guess it's something people have locked on to as another yard stick. Much likes CPU chips these days, instead of raw MHz, it's also about watts consumed.
A comparison cannot be kept away. I mean if you build 4 litres and get 400bhp, 6 litres 600bhp. Then when something else comes along and needs 6 litres to get 500bhp, many just go 'its
crap'. Not everyone is a engine engineer/designer/mechanic and like many things we pigeon hole it to some low common denominator.
I love mustangs and the early 70's era muscle cars. Personally i think they are crappish performance wise these days except on a runway
But I still love em, they have a charm.
But that was 40 years ago. I guess I even wonder why a USA carmaker does not have engines like Ferrari, or many of the German marques. If NASA can build the bloody space shuttle I am sure they could match an engine Is it because demand is not in the domestic market? Why? Anyone?
A comparison cannot be kept away. I mean if you build 4 litres and get 400bhp, 6 litres 600bhp. Then when something else comes along and needs 6 litres to get 500bhp, many just go 'its
crap'. Not everyone is a engine engineer/designer/mechanic and like many things we pigeon hole it to some low common denominator.
I love mustangs and the early 70's era muscle cars. Personally i think they are crappish performance wise these days except on a runway
But I still love em, they have a charm.But that was 40 years ago. I guess I even wonder why a USA carmaker does not have engines like Ferrari, or many of the German marques. If NASA can build the bloody space shuttle I am sure they could match an engine
Is it because demand is not in the domestic market? Why? Anyone?
ocks off?Hopefully they will be priced so as not to compete with one another. The Camaro should go head to head with the Mustang leaving the Corvette as the top of the range sportscar. As to which one to choose I guess it is down to budget and how many seats you need.
On the question of fuel efficiency, I have just returned from the US. Whilst away I travelled from New York to Tennessee, part on the interstate and part hooning around in the mountains, in a Corvette C5 Z06. Did nearly 1500 miles in three days and averaged 27mpg for the whole trip!
On the question of fuel efficiency, I have just returned from the US. Whilst away I travelled from New York to Tennessee, part on the interstate and part hooning around in the mountains, in a Corvette C5 Z06. Did nearly 1500 miles in three days and averaged 27mpg for the whole trip!
Spekdah-S2K said:
People tend to take bhp/ltr as a standard for engineering when referring to the more premium/sports models. Modern, mostly european engines tend to be the magic 100bhp/1ltr figure. I have no idea why, I guess it's something people have locked on to as another yard stick. Much likes CPU chips these days, instead of raw MHz, it's also about watts consumed.
A comparison cannot be kept away. I mean if you build 4 litres and get 400bhp, 6 litres 600bhp. Then when something else comes along and needs 6 litres to get 500bhp, many just go 'its
crap'. Not everyone is a engine engineer/designer/mechanic and like many things we pigeon hole it to some low common denominator.
I love mustangs and the early 70's era muscle cars. Personally i think they are crappish performance wise these days except on a runway But I still love em, they have a charm.
But that was 40 years ago. I guess I even wonder why a USA carmaker does not have engines like Ferrari, or many of the German marques. If NASA can build the bloody space shuttle I am sure they could match an engine Is it because demand is not in the domestic market? Why? Anyone?
It's basically a trade off of cubes vs revs really. But for a pushrod, 2 valve V8 to match a 4 cam, continuously variable timing AMG lump of the same capacity is stunning. The USA do make engine that are a match for the Europeans and the Japanese but they tend to take a different approach. It seems that the combination of the compact and light pushrod architecture of the Gen III and up V8 engines combined with the latest tech is a formidable combination A comparison cannot be kept away. I mean if you build 4 litres and get 400bhp, 6 litres 600bhp. Then when something else comes along and needs 6 litres to get 500bhp, many just go 'its
crap'. Not everyone is a engine engineer/designer/mechanic and like many things we pigeon hole it to some low common denominator.
I love mustangs and the early 70's era muscle cars. Personally i think they are crappish performance wise these days except on a runway
But I still love em, they have a charm.But that was 40 years ago. I guess I even wonder why a USA carmaker does not have engines like Ferrari, or many of the German marques. If NASA can build the bloody space shuttle I am sure they could match an engine
Is it because demand is not in the domestic market? Why? Anyone?
volvos60s60 said:
Are we talking US gallons or imperial gallons here when discussing mpg figures realised? 1 US gallon = 0.83 imperial gallons, so 27 mpg (US) = 22.5 mpg (UK)
Are you sure? By my calcs 27 miles per US gallon equals 7.1 miles per litre. Times that by 4.55 to get miles per imperial gallon and that's 32.4 mpg.The main benefits of a smaller, higher bhp/litre engine are:-
- Packaging - the car can be made smaller, and hence lighter...and it becomes a virtuous circle of reduced weight and better performance. This is even more important when making a 'hot' version of a mundane car, as the engine bay is often quite small and restricted.
- Reduced thermal losses, and hence greater efficiency*.
- (Often) Weight.
- Packaging - the car can be made smaller, and hence lighter...and it becomes a virtuous circle of reduced weight and better performance. This is even more important when making a 'hot' version of a mundane car, as the engine bay is often quite small and restricted.
- Reduced thermal losses, and hence greater efficiency*.
- (Often) Weight.
- Not always that simple - large, lazy, torquey yank pushrod lumps can have decent fuel economy through longer gearing such that at cruising speeds they're at ultra-low rpm...feasible only because of the much greater torque. Blunts the performance slightly in the process though...although with say 400bhp you don't notice that much!
mackie1 said:
volvos60s60 said:
Are we talking US gallons or imperial gallons here when discussing mpg figures realised? 1 US gallon = 0.83 imperial gallons, so 27 mpg (US) = 22.5 mpg (UK)
Are you sure? By my calcs 27 miles per US gallon equals 7.1 miles per litre. Times that by 4.55 to get miles per imperial gallon and that's 32.4 mpg.havoc said:
The main benefits of a smaller, higher bhp/litre engine are:-
- Packaging - the car can be made smaller, and hence lighter...and it becomes a virtuous circle of reduced weight and better performance.
However an LS7 is smaller and lighter than the BMW V10 despite having 2 extra litres of capacity, so it's not quite that simple from a packaging POV either. - Packaging - the car can be made smaller, and hence lighter...and it becomes a virtuous circle of reduced weight and better performance.
Long gearing is nice for long slogs. My car does 100mph at about 2300rpm.
Jack_and_MLE said:
6.2 ltr and 500bhp not so efficient really, just about 80bhp per litre could do better compare to an European engine
Correct. Just the way I like it... an understressed V8 that can take a beating all day without a whimper. Engines like these will do amazing mileages... Whereas high revving V8's from the europeans? Prone to failure and will wear out quicker in my opinion.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff