Discussion
Urban Sports said:
I often wonder about the same thing, like Porsche with the 944, they had a 2.5 a 3.0 and randomly a 2.7!
The most bizarre thing ever.
The porsche one is less random, when changing the 2.5 8v engine to the 3.0 16v engine they also decided to use the 3.0 bottom end with the old 2.5 8v head which left it as a 2.7. The most bizarre thing ever.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Why do Mercedes call their AMG models E63, C63 etc, when they are 6.2?
Do they think if they called it an E62, people would think "not buying that underpowered rubbish?"
It's a nod to the legendary M100 6.3 V8 engine, as used in the Mercedes 600 Grosser. I believe this was the first engine to be breathed on by AMG, hence the reference.Do they think if they called it an E62, people would think "not buying that underpowered rubbish?"
Edited by legless on Friday 8th November 22:51
Gizmoish said:
Don't know.
What I've always wondered though - why are diesel engines often 1.5, 1.7, 1.9, 2.1 when petrols are usually even numbers?
That one I can do. Back in the day, diesel engines and petrol engines would use the same engine blocks, but with different cranks and heads to get the extra compression. That would increase the stroke, which meant the notional capacity of the engine would go up a bit. What I've always wondered though - why are diesel engines often 1.5, 1.7, 1.9, 2.1 when petrols are usually even numbers?
mikey P 500 said:
Urban Sports said:
I often wonder about the same thing, like Porsche with the 944, they had a 2.5 a 3.0 and randomly a 2.7!
The most bizarre thing ever.
The porsche one is less random, when changing the 2.5 8v engine to the 3.0 16v engine they also decided to use the 3.0 bottom end with the old 2.5 8v head which left it as a 2.7. The most bizarre thing ever.
Welshbeef said:
Why did Audi make the 4.2 and 5.2 (specifically why 200cc more than 4ltr or 5ltr)
BMW work on a 1 cylinder is 500cc as the optimum while Audi use 525cc or 520cc (4.2. & 5.2 respectively).
Or is it these sizes for no specific reason.
Nowadays BMW engines are mostly (possibly all?) turbocharged so come in homogenous sizes. This never used to be the case and remains so for other manufacturers. BMW work on a 1 cylinder is 500cc as the optimum while Audi use 525cc or 520cc (4.2. & 5.2 respectively).
Or is it these sizes for no specific reason.
As far as I know an engine isn't designed to have a specific cubic capacity. Quoted sizes are a sort of best fit; like my car is a 1.9 - but won't be exactly 1900 cc. Or if it was it would be a massive coincidence. I digress.
Anyway an engine is designed to have a particular bore and stroke, dependent on what the manufacturer wishes it to do. If you look those figures up they tend to be more exacting. The final size is a product of those figures - although we have had 'classes' of engine since the fifties. The maker will fit it into a class ie 1.2, 1.4, 1.6 etc but it won't be exactly that size.
Don't various countries' tax regs come into it too? Keep the engine size below whatever threshold would put it into the higher tax band in the areas where that car is a big seller, avoids putting customers off with the tax costs, that kind of thing.
Might be irrelevant these days, what with emissions-based taxation.
Might be irrelevant these days, what with emissions-based taxation.
legless said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Why do Mercedes call their AMG models E63, C63 etc, when they are 6.2?
Do they think if they called it an E62, people would think "not buying that underpowered rubbish?"
It's a nod to the legendary M100 6.3 V8 engine, as used in the Mercedes 600 Grosser. I believe this was the first engine to be breathed on by AMG, hence the reference.Do they think if they called it an E62, people would think "not buying that underpowered rubbish?"
Edited by legless on Friday 8th November 22:51
davepoth said:
That one I can do. Back in the day, diesel engines and petrol engines would use the same engine blocks, but with different cranks and heads to get the extra compression. That would increase the stroke, which meant the notional capacity of the engine would go up a bit.
i Allways thought it went down? the old BL 1800 (ala MGB) was a 1700 diesel on the sherpa van, they used thicker piston crowns and decked the block which lowewrd the swept volume ?though TBH that is the only petrol/diesel engine i have owned in both guises.
mikey P 500 said:
Urban Sports said:
I often wonder about the same thing, like Porsche with the 944, they had a 2.5 a 3.0 and randomly a 2.7!
The most bizarre thing ever.
The porsche one is less random, when changing the 2.5 8v engine to the 3.0 16v engine they also decided to use the 3.0 bottom end with the old 2.5 8v head which left it as a 2.7. The most bizarre thing ever.
The 2.7 was a big bore version of the 2.5, stroke remained the same.
S0 What said:
i Allways thought it went down? the old BL 1800 (ala MGB) was a 1700 diesel on the sherpa van, they used thicker piston crowns and decked the block which lowewrd the swept volume ?
though TBH that is the only petrol/diesel engine i have owned in both guises.
As far as I can tell the B series was exactly the same capacity for both petrol and diesel. Not quite sure how they managed that. though TBH that is the only petrol/diesel engine i have owned in both guises.
davepoth said:
S0 What said:
i Allways thought it went down? the old BL 1800 (ala MGB) was a 1700 diesel on the sherpa van, they used thicker piston crowns and decked the block which lowewrd the swept volume ?
though TBH that is the only petrol/diesel engine i have owned in both guises.
As far as I can tell the B series was exactly the same capacity for both petrol and diesel. Not quite sure how they managed that. though TBH that is the only petrol/diesel engine i have owned in both guises.
Chris944_S2 said:
mikey P 500 said:
Urban Sports said:
I often wonder about the same thing, like Porsche with the 944, they had a 2.5 a 3.0 and randomly a 2.7!
The most bizarre thing ever.
The porsche one is less random, when changing the 2.5 8v engine to the 3.0 16v engine they also decided to use the 3.0 bottom end with the old 2.5 8v head which left it as a 2.7. The most bizarre thing ever.
The 2.7 was a big bore version of the 2.5, stroke remained the same.
Jonny_ said:
Don't various countries' tax regs come into it too? Keep the engine size below whatever threshold would put it into the higher tax band in the areas where that car is a big seller, avoids putting customers off with the tax costs, that kind of thing.
Might be irrelevant these days, what with emissions-based taxation.
Might be irrelevant these days, what with emissions-based taxation.
The e30 320iS was sort of a smaller engined version of the M3 for the Italian and Portuguese (sp?) markets purely for tax reasons. It had a 1990cc version of the S14 engine and the close ratio gearbox of the M3 in a standard 3 series chassis.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff