RE: AMG's new turbo V8

Author
Discussion

ghibbett

1,675 posts

127 months

Friday 13th June 2014
quotequote all
Riverside Red said:
The SLK will be a keeper and I intend to test drive a C63 before they disappear.

RR
Do it, they're great. I'm driving mine to Austria tomorrow. Hello Autobahn!

0a

21,153 posts

136 months

Friday 13th June 2014
quotequote all
Another step backwards to appease the emissions and tax rules frown

XJ Flyer

5,526 posts

72 months

Friday 13th June 2014
quotequote all
Max_Torque said:
Basically, engine torque is independent of cylinder bore, but engine power is not. This is because to make power you need revs, and maximum revs depend upon piston velocity, that depends upon piston stroke.
If that was right then a Triumph 2.5 6 cylinder and a Jag 6.0 XJRS V12 would be no more powerful than the 2.0 6 or 5.3 V12.It's that old torque v horsepower argument again.The fact is adding to the stroke dimension increases torque and as we all know more torque at equivalent engine speed means more power.IE torque multiplied by engine speed.In general it's always best to maximise the stroke dimension which can usually be done without compromising an engine's ability to rev to the point where a short stroke wins out over a relatively longer one.




Edited by XJ Flyer on Friday 13th June 22:52


Edited by XJ Flyer on Saturday 14th June 01:49

XJ Flyer

5,526 posts

72 months

Friday 13th June 2014
quotequote all
0a said:
Another step backwards to appease the emissions and tax rules frown
There's no substitute for cubic inches and it's sad when engineers try to pretend that downsizing is anything other than appeasement of the eco zealots.

Evo Sean

65 posts

108 months

Saturday 14th June 2014
quotequote all
Downsizing, among other things, is to help reduce gaseous emissions and particulate mass/number.

No doubt this engine will be eu6b and SULEV30 compliant but I suggest it's even eu6c compliant....a whole different ball game when it comes to particulates. It's a ten times reduction. From x10-11 to x10-12! Will be interesting to see if they use a GPF at all.

Also lower CO2 numbers will help with sales in general.
Advertisement

Wills2

15,663 posts

117 months

Saturday 14th June 2014
quotequote all
The article quotes 510hp for the GT version of the engine, I wonder and perhaps it's more important what the new c63 will produce?


smilo996

1,493 posts

112 months

Saturday 14th June 2014
quotequote all
mosdef in answer to your defence of the amazing new AMG V8.
Ducati 1199 Superlegerra engine details:
- Primary-drive casing, clutch casing, outer cover, sump and cam covers in magnesium alloy. Lightweight but thengine is so strong it is used as a stressed member - new and unique.
Secondary air system that completes the oxidisation of unburned hydrocarbons to reduces HC and CO levels - new and unique.
Rev limit 10,500 revs with cylinders double the diameter of the stroke - new and unique.
vacuum die cast cylinders but the head is fixed directly to the crank case - new and unique.
Has a self servo system ioncreasing ppressure on the clutch plates on acceleratio whislt keeping a light clutch and the opposite ion downshift to function as a slipper clutch - new and unique.
Valve under the cyclinders to reduce vacuum on start up to ensure smaller starter motor - new and unique.
to name but a few.

The AMG engine. In what way are each of these items new, innovative, ground breaking or highly advanced:
Dry sump - As Per Lotus, Ferrari, and McLaren to name but a few and for many years.
Forged internals. Motorcycle engines have used forged internals for years. Nothing new here.
The turbos are inboard of the V - that is the same as BMW did on their 2008 engine and that is because Borg Warner supply both companies. Nothing new here either.

Why is tuning the engine to make it sound naturally aspirated impressive??? Because turbo engines almost always make a very unremarkable sound e.g. 911 turbo, latest F1 engines, most Audis etc.

Apart from duping the customer into thinking he is driving something he is not, using the exhaust to make an engine sound different is not new, not difficult and much less impressive than making a normally aspirated engine or an engine with other tech in the first place. It is just fakery.

Quoting McLaren and Ferrari engines is largely irrelevant when you consider the types of cars they power (super cars v heavy saloons etc). Yes they have higher specific outputs but there's nothing to say this engine won't in years to come. This is the first iteration of it and it's first application will be in the C class, so I'd say it's safe to expect more.

This is AMG not Mercedes. They are supposed to be the pinnacle of engine development in Germany. The cars it will go into also include the AMG Coupe and new Astons. Thus it will be competing with Ferrari, McLaren, Lambo, Audi and Jaguar, that is why.
Not to mention the fact that BMW's similar engine, developed way back in 2008 also powers larger cars made by BMW. Not to mention Audi.

Why wait to bring out an engine with performance inferior as its competitors. Especially as they brought their engines out with figures in excess of AMG in the first iteration.

Lambo and Ferrari might not have forced induction yet (that's only a matter of time too - see the revised Californaia) but Jaguar have forced induction in every F Type and have replaced the naturally aspirated V8 in the XJ with a 3 litre 6 cylinder FI unit.

Jaguar use a Supercharger not turbos. Lambo have stated clearly that normally aspirated will continue. Do you really expect Ferrari to replace the entire range with turbos?
The actual reason why AMG have gone with the exact same engine config as BMW less 300cc's has nothing to do with the stunning engineering capability of AMG is has to do with who supplies BMW and AMG. In this case Bosch and Borg Warner who supply both companies with the requitise turbos and engine managment to match.

So it is not even an innovative and distinctive choice.

Maybe your critique is the less objective one and you're just bitter that AM will be using AMG engines?
[/quote]

I really do not care about Aston in the way your think. I ever buy one it will be a second hand one and therefore will not have an AMG engine. However and as usual the Tim's on Pistonheads from Chelsea think it is great that Aston is reduced to coach building and will be using turbos, as manufacturing in the UK takes another dive.
To say AMG will be supplying engines actually means that AMG will be supplying the entire drive train:
- Engines
- ZF gearboxes and axles.
- Bosch engine management and likely most of the wiring loom and at a push all electronics.

So Aston will be bashing aluminium panels, stitching seats and painting.
Is that not a shame? Ask how happy the Jaguar workers are to be producing engines for Jaguar?

mikey k

12,252 posts

158 months

Saturday 14th June 2014
quotequote all
smilo996 said:
So Aston will be bashing aluminium panels, stitching seats and painting.
Is that not a shame? Ask how happy the Jaguar workers are to be producing engines for Jaguar?
No they are using (and will continue with) their own VH body systems
Other than that they have been are already coach builders using parts from Graziano, Bosche, Ford, Volvo, Cosworth, Recaro, Alpine, Brembo, Caparo to name a few wink

Mosdef

1,404 posts

169 months

Saturday 14th June 2014
quotequote all
The Ducati tech does sound great but if it was easily applicable to a car engine, I'm sure it would have been done by now. We all know how different the power delivery is on a motorcycle engine and how the clutch in particular gets used so much more. I'm not sure comparing bike engines/drivetrains and car engines is that meaningful.

What AMG have achieved with their new engine is not amazing in terms of power outputs/stats. However, to get it to operate as it does and still comply with stringent EU regulations, is probably the far more impressive feat. Whilst it might not appear that impressive in comparison to the last generation of engines from other manufacturers that you've quoted, they're practically dinosaurs in terms of tech and efficiency. When they produce their next batches of engines that need to operate within the same parameters, I would bet that they won't be as impressive as their predecessors. I bet that's true of the BMW engine you cite. I think you're right in so far as it might not sound that impressive (in its most basic down tuned form let's not forget) but I bet the balance between power, regs, character etc will have been hard to achieve.

We'll have to disagree on the sound point. I had the 6.2 AMG engine in my last car and everytime I get in my latest one (the 5.5 TT) I'm disappointed by the driving characteristics - particularly the throttle response, the noise, the wall of diesel-esque low down torque and even the fuel consumption on longer runs. It was designed to get through a farcical test, pure and simple. If a turbo engine can be made to sound and respond like a naturally aspirated one, I know what I'd prefer.

I think the simple truth is that whilst it's a shame for Aston to have to adopt a relatively mass produced turbo engine, without doing so it will be legislated out of existence. As Mikey K said, they've effectively been a coach builder for some time so no real change there.

Out of interest, why do you rate supercharging higher than turbocharging? I have relatively little experience with S/C engines and wondered why you seem to prefer/ rate them higher?

XJ Flyer

5,526 posts

72 months

Saturday 14th June 2014
quotequote all
Mosdef said:


I think the simple truth is that whilst it's a shame for Aston to have to adopt a relatively mass produced turbo engine, without doing so it will be legislated out of existence. As Mikey K said, they've effectively been a coach builder for some time so no real change there.

Out of interest, why do you rate supercharging higher than turbocharging? I have relatively little experience with S/C engines and wondered why you seem to prefer/ rate them higher?
There's no actual legislation that says that any manufacturer can't use the larger capacity V12 formula as opposed to must use the downsized V8 one.

The advantage of supercharging is usually response in more boost being available at lower engine speeds.While trying to create the same effect,with turbocharging,usually involves a lot more complication in regards to elimination of lag etc etc.While larger capacity allows for less boost required to get the same output therefore less stress.



Mosdef

1,404 posts

169 months

Saturday 14th June 2014
quotequote all
If an ageing V12, or any V12 for that matter, could be made as efficient as a more modern V8, I'm sure AML wouldn't be bothering with AMG. Doesn't it just come down to the below?

http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/vehic...

I can't see how any small manufacturer will get round this on their own.

Re: supercharger v turbocharger, there is a difference but both give an undesirable result in my opinion: poor throttle response and far too much torque low down.

XJ Flyer

5,526 posts

72 months

Saturday 14th June 2014
quotequote all
Mosdef said:
If an ageing V12, or any V12 for that matter, could be made as efficient as a more modern V8, I'm sure AML wouldn't be bothering with AMG. Doesn't it just come down to the below?

http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/vehic...

I can't see how any small manufacturer will get round this on their own.

Re: supercharger v turbocharger, there is a difference but both give an undesirable result in my opinion: poor throttle response and far too much torque low down.
Assuming that it's just a specialist car maker that just makes relatively large engined cars like Astons, being associated with up to 7 + litre V12's,it's obvious in that case that there can be no 'fleet' average because there is no 'fleet'.Which is probably why they don't seem to be planning any relatively small capacity V8's in the biggest most expensive Bentley barges for example.Which isn't surprising considering that the average lottery winner couldn't care less about CO2 outputs.Just like no one else should if they choose not to.

As for anyone who thinks that low down torque output is a disadvantage then a short stroke,V12,like in the one 77 would be ideal.Remembering that the larger the overall capacity the less boost is required,therefore less dependence on boost and better response.

As for me I'd be happy with a 6 litre V12 version of Jaguar's supercharged V6.

Mastodon2

12,835 posts

107 months

Saturday 14th June 2014
quotequote all
For all this talk of how good it's going to sound, I will wait and hear it in person. The number of times I've heard these "new generation of turbocharged engines will sound great" and it's not been true is something I've lost count of. Take the F10 M5, what a song and dance about how they had worked hard to give it a pleasing sound, and they just sound flat and lifeless compared to their older NA brothers.

I would be interested to see some scientific analysis of why turbocharged engines sound so flat, I believe it's something to do with the intake and exhaust noise of an NA engine being caused by the valves opening and shutting, each causing a short burst of suction, giving a soundwave that if visualised, would be a sine wave with high peaks and low troughs. The air moving through the compressor and the exhaust gas moving through the vanes compressed the sine wave, effectively cutting the highest peaks and the lowest troughs off the soundwave, hence there is less dynamic range in the waveform, creating the flatter, dull sound. All the intake and exhaust tuning in the world can only change the pitch and volume,and to a much lesser extent the tone of the sounds. So unless AMG have managed to somehow alter the way the turbochargers fundamentally affect the induction and exhaust sound of an engine, which I somehow suspect they have not, we'll be in for another bland and lifeless turbo engine. Welcome to the new era.

b0rk

898 posts

88 months

Sunday 15th June 2014
quotequote all
smilo996 said:
So Aston will be bashing aluminium panels, stitching seats and painting.
Is that not a shame? Ask how happy the Jaguar workers are to be producing engines for Jaguar?
Aston not existing would surely be the greater shame, let's be honest for a second the volume of cars AM produce is far below Jaguar and far below the point AM could realistically fund a engine development programme. How is AM using AMG lumps any different to AM using Ford produced lumps?

dinkel

24,917 posts

200 months

Sunday 15th June 2014
quotequote all
Sound: I never heart anyone complain about the F40. Or the Renault 5 Turbo.

mikey k

12,252 posts

158 months

Sunday 15th June 2014
quotequote all
Mosdef said:
If an ageing V12, or any V12 for that matter, could be made as efficient as a more modern V8, I'm sure AML wouldn't be bothering with AMG. Doesn't it just come down to the below?

http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/vehic...

I can't see how any small manufacturer will get round this on their own.

Re: supercharger v turbocharger, there is a difference but both give an undesirable result in my opinion: poor throttle response and far too much torque low down.
whistle

https://www.astonmartin.com/en/n24/rapide-s

They just need to get it in to production

Max_Torque

13,613 posts

159 months

Sunday 15th June 2014
quotequote all
XJ Flyer said:
Max_Torque said:
Basically, engine torque is independent of cylinder bore, but engine power is not. This is because to make power you need revs, and maximum revs depend upon piston velocity, that depends upon piston stroke.
If that was right then a Triumph 2.5 6 cylinder and a Jag 6.0 XJRS V12 would be no more powerful than the 2.0 6 or 5.3 V12.It's that old torque v horsepower argument again.The fact is adding to the stroke dimension increases torque and as we all know more torque at equivalent engine speed means more power.IE torque multiplied by engine speed.In general it's always best to maximise the stroke dimension which can usually be done without compromising an engine's ability to rev to the point where a short stroke wins out over a relatively longer one.
Sorry, but it is right.

Torque or more specifically BMEP, is independent of cylinder bore, because piston area and crank throw cancel each other out for a given cylinder capacity. Obviously, a large capacity engine will make more torque for a given specific torque output.





XJ Flyer

5,526 posts

72 months

Sunday 15th June 2014
quotequote all
mikey k said:
Mosdef said:
If an ageing V12, or any V12 for that matter, could be made as efficient as a more modern V8, I'm sure AML wouldn't be bothering with AMG. Doesn't it just come down to the below?

http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/vehic...

I can't see how any small manufacturer will get round this on their own.

Re: supercharger v turbocharger, there is a difference but both give an undesirable result in my opinion: poor throttle response and far too much torque low down.
whistle

https://www.astonmartin.com/en/n24/rapide-s

They just need to get it in to production
Sounds great but why bother with all the expense, added weight and complication and resulting unreliability of a hybrid system bearing in mind modern specific output potential.But you can bet that the eco zealots would probably still find a reason to complain about it.


Edited by XJ Flyer on Sunday 15th June 19:05

DonkeyApple

33,537 posts

111 months

Monday 16th June 2014
quotequote all
Mosdef said:
If an ageing V12, or any V12 for that matter, could be made as efficient as a more modern V8, I'm sure AML wouldn't be bothering with AMG. Doesn't it just come down to the below?

http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/vehic...

I can't see how any small manufacturer will get round this on their own.

Re: supercharger v turbocharger, there is a difference but both give an undesirable result in my opinion: poor throttle response and far too much torque low down.
The real issue at AM is that while all other prestige firms have been investing in their next gen power plants to be globally compliant for all vital sales markets and forming partnerships that allow better corporate averages or populist models to generate production volumes AM have spent the last decade moving as much capital as possible from the balance sheet to various pension plans. So much so that they haven't enough money or revenue to do anything other than import a drivetrain going forward.

But, let's be really honest, AM haven't had their own engine since the end of the 80s and have sold more cars per annum in the last decade than almost total production previously so I don't think the market cars at all outside of the UK. So long as Sheik Igor Ping still views it as a product to maintain the vital new money task of informing random strangers that he is considerably richer than yow, it'll all be fine.

XJ Flyer

5,526 posts

72 months

Monday 16th June 2014
quotequote all
DonkeyApple said:
Mosdef said:
If an ageing V12, or any V12 for that matter, could be made as efficient as a more modern V8, I'm sure AML wouldn't be bothering with AMG. Doesn't it just come down to the below?

http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/vehic...

I can't see how any small manufacturer will get round this on their own.

Re: supercharger v turbocharger, there is a difference but both give an undesirable result in my opinion: poor throttle response and far too much torque low down.
The real issue at AM is that while all other prestige firms have been investing in their next gen power plants to be globally compliant for all vital sales markets and forming partnerships that allow better corporate averages or populist models to generate production volumes AM have spent the last decade moving as much capital as possible from the balance sheet to various pension plans. So much so that they haven't enough money or revenue to do anything other than import a drivetrain going forward.

But, let's be really honest, AM haven't had their own engine since the end of the 80s and have sold more cars per annum in the last decade than almost total production previously so I don't think the market cars at all outside of the UK. So long as Sheik Igor Ping still views it as a product to maintain the vital new money task of informing random strangers that he is considerably richer than yow, it'll all be fine.
If they haven't had 'their own engine' since the old V8 then exactly what/who else was it that has used their V12.While the fact is,like Jaguar,Aston was never intended to be a large 'volume' producer.


Edited by XJ Flyer on Monday 16th June 14:46