RE: A Return To Straight Six Engines For Aston?
Discussion
A bit late in the day to this thread, but anyway.
I understand why Dr Bez would like a 6C in the Aston range. It is a very historic layout for Aston that harks back to pre-DB4 days. We also know that modern Astons have delicious sounding V12s.
Yet, a proper Aston engine will always be a 5343cc V8, hand built by Fred Waters at Newport Pagnell IMHO.
I understand why Dr Bez would like a 6C in the Aston range. It is a very historic layout for Aston that harks back to pre-DB4 days. We also know that modern Astons have delicious sounding V12s.
Yet, a proper Aston engine will always be a 5343cc V8, hand built by Fred Waters at Newport Pagnell IMHO.
I really feel 2.5 would be just too small. 3 liters would be excellent, but in semi aston tradition, supercharging would be more appropriate, and makes a cool sound. just think new audi quattro concept uses a small inline five turbo that will make 400HP, so in 5 years, that would very possible for aston to acheive with this new small engine too. and for those complaining that astons should be naturally aspirated, the 90s vantages and Db7 were supercharged and twin supercharged. and, if turbo is used, i at first was critical that the new Mclaren wasn't naturally aspirated like the original v12 literally shrieking (in a good way) F1, but that new 3.8 tt v8 is an incredible acheivement.
[quote=300bhp/ton]
They still suffer LAG though. Lag isn't where in the rpm range it makes boost, that's boost threshold.
Lag is what happens after a stall period. This is when the turbo slows down and there is a lag while it spins up and compresses the intake charge again. This can happen at any revs, e.g.
6000rpm, go from WOT, to no throttle to WOT in about 1.5 secs. The reduction in exhaust gas flow will cause the the turbo impeller to slow, boost will drop, pressure intake air pressure will drop, if a BOV/DV is fitted it will expel what high pressure air remains in the intake system between the turbo and TB plate.
When you reapply the throttle you firstly have to wait for the exhaust gas flow to increase, once it has increased you then have to wait for the turbo speed to increase, once the turbo is spinning fast enough you have to wait for it to compress the intake air, then you have to wait for it to pressurize the intake system in order to actually delivery higher than atmosphere pressure intake air into the combustion chamber.
Even with the slickest modern setups they still have to abide to these limitations. And lag will be present.
The only way to get around it, is with an anti-lag system. Most are called bang bang's and fire fuel into the exhaust, where it ignites and keeps the turbo spinning at high speed and making boost.
But such systems are very noisy, horrendous fuel economy and highly destructive. Rally cars use this setup mostly.
I have had a few turbo cars since 1980's and still have one, first one the Mitsibushi Starion had a good 2 litre set up but lagged, next the 1983 Audi Urq, this was improved via superchip and modified spring, chose to wind it up (motorbike style and didnt blow motor) but still had lag below 3000rpm.
Re 1994 RS2 often accused of lag - Either my nerve is failing or mine is better than normal - the power delivery from 2500rpm is very good and beyond 4000rpm quite brilliant. It is an excuse to use the c/ratio six speed box than was fitted as standard in 1994 and we re-engineering the gear change mechanism to help.
They still suffer LAG though. Lag isn't where in the rpm range it makes boost, that's boost threshold.
Lag is what happens after a stall period. This is when the turbo slows down and there is a lag while it spins up and compresses the intake charge again. This can happen at any revs, e.g.
6000rpm, go from WOT, to no throttle to WOT in about 1.5 secs. The reduction in exhaust gas flow will cause the the turbo impeller to slow, boost will drop, pressure intake air pressure will drop, if a BOV/DV is fitted it will expel what high pressure air remains in the intake system between the turbo and TB plate.
When you reapply the throttle you firstly have to wait for the exhaust gas flow to increase, once it has increased you then have to wait for the turbo speed to increase, once the turbo is spinning fast enough you have to wait for it to compress the intake air, then you have to wait for it to pressurize the intake system in order to actually delivery higher than atmosphere pressure intake air into the combustion chamber.
Even with the slickest modern setups they still have to abide to these limitations. And lag will be present.
The only way to get around it, is with an anti-lag system. Most are called bang bang's and fire fuel into the exhaust, where it ignites and keeps the turbo spinning at high speed and making boost.
But such systems are very noisy, horrendous fuel economy and highly destructive. Rally cars use this setup mostly.
I have had a few turbo cars since 1980's and still have one, first one the Mitsibushi Starion had a good 2 litre set up but lagged, next the 1983 Audi Urq, this was improved via superchip and modified spring, chose to wind it up (motorbike style and didnt blow motor) but still had lag below 3000rpm.
Re 1994 RS2 often accused of lag - Either my nerve is failing or mine is better than normal - the power delivery from 2500rpm is very good and beyond 4000rpm quite brilliant. It is an excuse to use the c/ratio six speed box than was fitted as standard in 1994 and we re-engineering the gear change mechanism to help.
Edited by urquattro on Sunday 27th February 17:02
I seem to remember reading possibly on PH recently about a British patent to use an electric motor to spin up the turbo almost instantly, then let the exhaust gasses take over powint it when they flowed enough. This was designed to reguce lag caused by the turbo stalling. Maybe AM are planning on using something similar to overcome the lag issue.
With the way fuel prices are going, a smaller AM would surely sell like hot cakes to people in the market for M3's, while the v12's could be sold to the people who dont need to think about the cost of fuel.
With the way fuel prices are going, a smaller AM would surely sell like hot cakes to people in the market for M3's, while the v12's could be sold to the people who dont need to think about the cost of fuel.
oagent said:
I seem to remember reading possibly on PH recently about a British patent to use an electric motor to spin up the turbo almost instantly, then let the exhaust gasses take over powint it when they flowed enough. This was designed to reguce lag caused by the turbo stalling. Maybe AM are planning on using something similar to overcome the lag issue.
With the way fuel prices are going, a smaller AM would surely sell like hot cakes to people in the market for M3's, while the v12's could be sold to the people who dont need to think about the cost of fuel.
I would have thought that wouldn't be any quicker than the spool up time on the turbo? Spinning the turbo all the time would make its losses similar to a supercharger on idle but with additional losses of a big electric motor driving it rather than the crank. Surely better to cut out the electric middle man and have the turbo driven off an aux belt or something more heat resistant? You could use a clutch to disconnect at higher flow rates or at idle when not needed.With the way fuel prices are going, a smaller AM would surely sell like hot cakes to people in the market for M3's, while the v12's could be sold to the people who dont need to think about the cost of fuel.
renrut said:
oagent said:
I seem to remember reading possibly on PH recently about a British patent to use an electric motor to spin up the turbo almost instantly, then let the exhaust gasses take over powint it when they flowed enough. This was designed to reguce lag caused by the turbo stalling. Maybe AM are planning on using something similar to overcome the lag issue.
With the way fuel prices are going, a smaller AM would surely sell like hot cakes to people in the market for M3's, while the v12's could be sold to the people who dont need to think about the cost of fuel.
I would have thought that wouldn't be any quicker than the spool up time on the turbo? Spinning the turbo all the time would make its losses similar to a supercharger on idle but with additional losses of a big electric motor driving it rather than the crank. Surely better to cut out the electric middle man and have the turbo driven off an aux belt or something more heat resistant? You could use a clutch to disconnect at higher flow rates or at idle when not needed.With the way fuel prices are going, a smaller AM would surely sell like hot cakes to people in the market for M3's, while the v12's could be sold to the people who dont need to think about the cost of fuel.
Twincam16 said:
renrut said:
oagent said:
I seem to remember reading possibly on PH recently about a British patent to use an electric motor to spin up the turbo almost instantly, then let the exhaust gasses take over powint it when they flowed enough. This was designed to reguce lag caused by the turbo stalling. Maybe AM are planning on using something similar to overcome the lag issue.
With the way fuel prices are going, a smaller AM would surely sell like hot cakes to people in the market for M3's, while the v12's could be sold to the people who dont need to think about the cost of fuel.
I would have thought that wouldn't be any quicker than the spool up time on the turbo? Spinning the turbo all the time would make its losses similar to a supercharger on idle but with additional losses of a big electric motor driving it rather than the crank. Surely better to cut out the electric middle man and have the turbo driven off an aux belt or something more heat resistant? You could use a clutch to disconnect at higher flow rates or at idle when not needed.With the way fuel prices are going, a smaller AM would surely sell like hot cakes to people in the market for M3's, while the v12's could be sold to the people who dont need to think about the cost of fuel.
I'm sure they want a new 6cyl engine, but the bigger question is how are they going to pay for it??
A clean sheet class leading engine, with outputs of between 400 and say 550bhp (for the top of the range model), from a capacity of approx 3litres is going to set you back in the region of £150M by the time you have calibrated it. Even if they skimped massively (which is a dangerous game to play) then i can't see it being less than £50M for the short engine alone. Now i'm sure they have some sensible model volume predictions, but unless they use this engine across the board, i can't see the payback personally.
It would be better to do a deal, borrow someone elses engine (BMW N54 with the boost wound up!!) to get a head start
A clean sheet class leading engine, with outputs of between 400 and say 550bhp (for the top of the range model), from a capacity of approx 3litres is going to set you back in the region of £150M by the time you have calibrated it. Even if they skimped massively (which is a dangerous game to play) then i can't see it being less than £50M for the short engine alone. Now i'm sure they have some sensible model volume predictions, but unless they use this engine across the board, i can't see the payback personally.
It would be better to do a deal, borrow someone elses engine (BMW N54 with the boost wound up!!) to get a head start
A few thoughts on this topic:
Aston used a 4 cylinder engine for more then 30 years. Most of that time it was just 1.5 litres. And to replace their 2 litre 4 cylinder engine, they bought a company called Lagonda because it had a lovely engine designed by WO Bentley. The next generation of six cylinder engine, and the 5.34 litre V8 was designed and made by themselves.
When the DB7 was launcehd, they downsized to a 3.2 six with a supercharger, derived from a Jaguar engine. It was a huge sales success, and saved Aston as a company. All the engines used after this date has been built by someone else- either Cosworth or Ford in Cologne (when owned by Ford and latterly under licence)
So, historically Aston have made engines themselves more then they have bought in engines. However, Astons with other peoples engines have been far more successful then those without.
The real question, I feel is "does it matter??" I have been in the Jaguar XJ fitted with a 3 cylinder diesel engine from Lotus and electric motors. Its so quiet you cant tell when the engine is running or not, just that it will do more then 60mpg with 5 people, fll aircon etc etc. I have also been in an sports car with a Diesel engine which, thanks to some trick intake work sounds just like a petrol sports car. And then there was Lotus years ago providing enough sound deadening to quieten any engine, and then providing a soundtrack to suit- Can-Am today sir? F1 V12??
With technology, you can make any car sound how you want. And as along as the marketing is right, people will buy. Which it needs to- as someone else said, engines are getting smaller and more technical, and soon this will be buyer-led. Aston is in the buisness of selling cars, which need to be bought.
Finally, is it so bad that we might see a frugal Aston in the future? It will mean more of us can afford to drive it more!
Aston used a 4 cylinder engine for more then 30 years. Most of that time it was just 1.5 litres. And to replace their 2 litre 4 cylinder engine, they bought a company called Lagonda because it had a lovely engine designed by WO Bentley. The next generation of six cylinder engine, and the 5.34 litre V8 was designed and made by themselves.
When the DB7 was launcehd, they downsized to a 3.2 six with a supercharger, derived from a Jaguar engine. It was a huge sales success, and saved Aston as a company. All the engines used after this date has been built by someone else- either Cosworth or Ford in Cologne (when owned by Ford and latterly under licence)
So, historically Aston have made engines themselves more then they have bought in engines. However, Astons with other peoples engines have been far more successful then those without.
The real question, I feel is "does it matter??" I have been in the Jaguar XJ fitted with a 3 cylinder diesel engine from Lotus and electric motors. Its so quiet you cant tell when the engine is running or not, just that it will do more then 60mpg with 5 people, fll aircon etc etc. I have also been in an sports car with a Diesel engine which, thanks to some trick intake work sounds just like a petrol sports car. And then there was Lotus years ago providing enough sound deadening to quieten any engine, and then providing a soundtrack to suit- Can-Am today sir? F1 V12??
With technology, you can make any car sound how you want. And as along as the marketing is right, people will buy. Which it needs to- as someone else said, engines are getting smaller and more technical, and soon this will be buyer-led. Aston is in the buisness of selling cars, which need to be bought.
Finally, is it so bad that we might see a frugal Aston in the future? It will mean more of us can afford to drive it more!
Oddball RS said:
will261058 said:
Great news if it happens. V8s have a great sound and V12s sound good to but a howling inline six floats my boat like no other 
Howling what??? in a word TURBO! think Dysonwill261058 said:
Oddball RS said:
will261058 said:
Great news if it happens. V8s have a great sound and V12s sound good to but a howling inline six floats my boat like no other
Howling what??? in a word TURBO! think DysonMax_Torque said:
I'm sure they want a new 6cyl engine, but the bigger question is how are they going to pay for it??
A clean sheet class leading engine, with outputs of between 400 and say 550bhp (for the top of the range model), from a capacity of approx 3litres is going to set you back in the region of £150M by the time you have calibrated it. Even if they skimped massively (which is a dangerous game to play) then i can't see it being less than £50M for the short engine alone. Now i'm sure they have some sensible model volume predictions, but unless they use this engine across the board, i can't see the payback personally.
It would be better to do a deal, borrow someone elses engine (BMW N54 with the boost wound up!!) to get a head start
Or alternatively they could just use one bank of the V12's cylinders to create a neat 3-litre slant-six.A clean sheet class leading engine, with outputs of between 400 and say 550bhp (for the top of the range model), from a capacity of approx 3litres is going to set you back in the region of £150M by the time you have calibrated it. Even if they skimped massively (which is a dangerous game to play) then i can't see it being less than £50M for the short engine alone. Now i'm sure they have some sensible model volume predictions, but unless they use this engine across the board, i can't see the payback personally.
It would be better to do a deal, borrow someone elses engine (BMW N54 with the boost wound up!!) to get a head start
I reckon this is to use in the AMV8 Vantage's replacement, given that they're no longer connected to Jaguar via Ford, so 'creating two engines out of one' might make more sense. Jaguar did this - developed the AJ6 from the Mundy V12.
MonteV said:
I love idea of a straight six Aston. 2,5 liters wouldn't give me the buzz as the displacement is likely to be too small to make it sound right, and a turbo will drown whatever sound is left. If they made it supercharged it would be a different story.
The 2.5 Alfa GTV was IT when it comes to sound.Having seen a Cosworth built 3.0 straight six turbo lump in action, there would be no shortage of power & driveability available. It started life as a Toyota JZ engine & has since been twiddled by the bods at Cosworth.
I'm sure they could build a super reliable, 400-500bhp road going lump easily enough, which is about half of what the JZ engine made last week on the dyno on low boost
I'm sure they could build a super reliable, 400-500bhp road going lump easily enough, which is about half of what the JZ engine made last week on the dyno on low boost
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff