Do Americans dislike v12's but love v8's?

[davepoth]

I think it's simply because they like lots of torque, and a short stroke 5 litre v12 simply doesn't make as much torque at low revs as a long stroke 5 litre v8. They aren't adverse to more cylinders when needed - the early 2000s saw v10s from Ford and Chrysler in big SUVs, rather than make a new and massive v8.

[300bhp/ton]

Welshbeef said:

V8 is two I4 welded together

Actually no. A traditional "Yank" V8 is not two I4's welded together, that would be something like a Ferrari or TVR AJP8 flat plane crank V8. Traditional V8's are more like two V4's welded together.

Welshbeef said:

while v12 two I6 and are renound for the smoothness.

So is a V8, note what has powered most Rolls Royces and Bentleys for the past few decades.

Welshbeef said:

V8 doesn't sound as good as a v12 - though I'd love a v8.

They sound different, not sure I could wholeheartedly say one sounded better than the other.

Welshbeef said:

V12's have more power on an identical capacity comparison due to the fact the more cylinders the more torque all else being equal same heads etc.

????

[300bhp/ton]

Welshbeef said:

Then there is re Hemi with Hollies and some other type of v8 (not bog block v small block)

Hemi refers to the shape of the combustion chamber not the type of engine. Big block and small block are also not types, just a road and often inaccurate description of classifying the large and small engines.

[Efbe]

They can't count to 12 on their hands.

[300bhp/ton]

Welshbeef said:

Is it only Lincons and Packards which are v12's with everything else interesting being v8.

Question is why? The v12 is sublime ultimate balanced engine and they can certainly sound sweet too.

So why is the v8 so big (or spears to be)?

Oh and to answer your question...

Well I think you highlight an almost perfect example of British ignorance and stereotyping America and American's

V8's may well be associated with the USA, but it is far from the only engine they produce. In this day and age I suspect there are more I4 and V6's sold and produced in the US than V8's. And even in times past I4's I6's and V6's where all popular engines. V8's tended to only be in the halo high powered models, not the mass produced volume sales versions.

Go back further in time and engines like the Pontiac Straight 8 and other engine configurations where equally as popular.


Anyhow, to the V8. Well there is some simple logic behind it:

-It's compact being no longer than an I4 engine, and often not hugely wider. So very adaptable to fit into a lot of vehicle shapes and sizes.

-Cheap and easy to manufacture. One cam in most traditional ones, somewhere to sit the carb in the Vee. I don't know actual costs, but in labour and material it wouldn't surprise me if an OHV V8 costs only marginally more to build than an OHC I4, it certainly wouldn't be double the cost.

-They can support large displacements, 7 or 8 litres no problem. And subsequently produce good power and torque. So why would you want a V12 engine that is bigger, heavier, less easy to fit into a vehicle, costs more to make and won't actually produce any more real world performance or power?

-It's also worth remember pretty much all auto makers in the US are mass production industries, or owned by larger blue collar companies. All of their cars, even the fast ones are still sold on a mass scale. As I posted in another thread recently, in 1979 Pontiac sold 117,000 Trans Am's, 25,000 Formula's and another 70,000 Firebird and Esprit models.

All of the Trans Am's and Formula's would have had the V8 options. And this is only one vehicle model from one company in one year making over 200,000 vehicles!!! Has Ferrari in all it's history made 200,000 cars?

My point is, on such a mass scale it makes far more sense to use an engine that is available across other models and is widely supported, reliable and easy to maintain. You cannot hand build bespoke engines on this scale. These same engines (often in various guises) will be found in sedans, trucks and many other vehicles. Economies of scale make this financially sensible. A V12 would simply not be as adaptable.


-It's actually quite interesting to note that you pick up on American's disliking V12's.... Well what about us Brits? We had the lovely Jaguar V12, which in fairness was big, heavy and underpowered. But that's about it.

Daimler produced a V8, as do Jaguar now. Aston Martin, TVR and Lotus too have all made their own V8's as well. The only "other" V12 I can think of is Aston's, but in reality that's an American Ford engine as featured in the Indigo concept car some years prior to Aston using it.

[Crafty_]

300bhp nailed it really, for the manufacturer its all about cost.

You could get V8s early on, Cadillac had one in about 1915/1916. Ford stuck with I4s for a long time past that until he introduced the flathead (1932). Legend has it he told the engineers to design it without an oil\water pump to make it cheaper and only relented when the engineers proved it was impossible for the engine to have any durability.
Ford wanted an affordable V8 to beat Chevrolet, who had already moved to I6 engines to get more power. It had to be dead cheap, hence the design of the engine - most of the machining is on the block - cheaper than machining a block and heads.

Chevrolet held out until 1955 for a V8, Oldsmobile and Buick started a little earlier around the late 40s/early 50s. I6 engines continued in poverty spec cars and trucks until recent times when V6s took their place.

[Ozzie Osmond]

There's not a lot of point having more than 8 cylinders - other than for the bragging rights. Hence they are generally only found at the "show-off" end of the car spectrum.