Terrible US Engines
- Thread starter Eliot
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 5,365
- Location
- West Sussex
They want big cars that can maintain a decent pace at lowish revs for literally hours on end.
Our roads are completely different in these terms.
Our roads are completely different in these terms.
Miss my northstar. do not however miss the amount of oil it needed at changes
aren't they only every 100k or something though?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 713
There lazy engines by design, just like our city cars are tiny 1000cc 65PS micro machines. Its all down to what suits the roads, a big American car would not do so well on our roads, just like out tiny cars wont on theirs. They can make some fantastic engines but the bad outweigh the good I feel????
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 5,365
- Location
- West Sussex
I seem to recall that Cadillac have a car with a V8 that only uses 5 cylinders at a time whilst cruising and it's first service is 100k.
Interesting to compare the LS7 with the BMW v10 from the M5/6. Yes the Chevvy requires 2 more litres to make the same power, but the engine is lighter, simpler (fewer parts) and more compact than the BMW unit. It also makes 25% more torque.
Make or made? Or both?
At the moment:
- Chevrolet LS2
- Chevrolet LS3
- Chevrolet LS7
- Chevrolet LS9
I already said LS series is good ...
350bhp, 380ftlb is just poor.
Gas mileage not as good as LS series either.
Toyota V8s are better
I was not talking about Diesels as they are not "fun" engines.
That's a hybrid, again not "fun".
Again lazy engine, 300bhp/300ftlb
Not as good as LS series or other fun V8s.
You mean "EcoBoost", which is mainly based on Mazda and Ford EU designs...
Again not American, originally designs were lead by Opel and Holden.
Truck engines, not fun.
Why does an engine need to be 'fun' to be good?
Truck engines need to be fun too?
I'm sure hybrids in the future can be fun, maybe not for luddites such as yourself.
No goal posts moved, I said sports car (ie something fun) in my very first post.
EcoBoost engines are based on Duratec engines still, which are not Ford USA designs but had Ford EU and Mazda input.
As lashout pointed out, the American's have made some of the finest engines in the world over the last 60 years or so. The point with a lot of the American V8's is that they are easily tunable by the buyer if they so wish, but if they don't want to bother ...they are very, very robust and will just go on and on and on while offering adequate performance.
You talk about the Ford 4.6L Modular V8 being poor for developing 300bhp/300lbs/ft, I disagree, so lets use some facts shall we.
Take the variant of this engine used in the 2005+ Mustang which at stock is 300bhp/325lbs/ft that is a 24v SOHC 4.6 L engine, so 3 valves per cylinder and a single overhead camshaft per cylinder bank.
The 4.4 litre DOHC 32v V8 with VANOS variable valve timing in my BMW produces 286bhp/325lbs/ft ....while having 4 valves per cylinder and two overhead camshafts per cylinder bank and variable camshaft positioning with the VANOS units.
I believe the GM LS series of engines are all pushrod design, so would tend to be lower revving and a little slower to respond by nature than an overhead cam design, but just look at the figures, they speak for themselves. I'm not sure if they are all 2v per cylinder still or not but many have been over the years.
You talk about the Ford 4.6L Modular V8 being poor for developing 300bhp/300lbs/ft, I disagree, so lets use some facts shall we.
Take the variant of this engine used in the 2005+ Mustang which at stock is 300bhp/325lbs/ft that is a 24v SOHC 4.6 L engine, so 3 valves per cylinder and a single overhead camshaft per cylinder bank.
The 4.4 litre DOHC 32v V8 with VANOS variable valve timing in my BMW produces 286bhp/325lbs/ft ....while having 4 valves per cylinder and two overhead camshafts per cylinder bank and variable camshaft positioning with the VANOS units.
I believe the GM LS series of engines are all pushrod design, so would tend to be lower revving and a little slower to respond by nature than an overhead cam design, but just look at the figures, they speak for themselves. I'm not sure if they are all 2v per cylinder still or not but many have been over the years.
I had my camaro on the rollers yesterday, partially inspired by all the people asking what it makes at the southern meet.
Bear in mind that was with a carb I rebuilt, set the idle screws and thats it. And I've not got round to setting the timing since installing the dizzy. I suspect that may be where the top end has gone.
The thing is these engines are so beautifully torquey. You can just put your foot down and off you go, none of this revving business
.
Bear in mind that was with a carb I rebuilt, set the idle screws and thats it. And I've not got round to setting the timing since installing the dizzy. I suspect that may be where the top end has gone.
The thing is these engines are so beautifully torquey. You can just put your foot down and off you go, none of this revving business
.
Associate
- Joined
- 26 Oct 2009
- Posts
- 107
Ford Modular 4.6l ALU V8 is a very good engine. 6800rpm limit, great MPG figures and its very tunable on stock internals. Infact did this engine not win engine of the year award more than once?
Also 2011 Mustangs will have an all new 5.0l ALU V8, that sounds very promising.
Then the noise
American emissions regulations have traditionally been about preventing smog which is a more localised form of pollution caused by the likes of unburnt hydrocarbons and nitrous oxides in your exhaust emissions. Places like California who are really anal about smog have very strict emissions regulations in place (though a lot of California's smog these days is blown over from China)
It was smog that cause the requirement for catalytic converters, which are a nice fat restriction in the exhaust pipe that reduces fuel efficiency but converts some of the nastier chemicals in the exhaust emissions into more benign ones such as water.
Modern day European environmental concerns are all about CO2, which needs a totally different approach to emissions control, CO2 emissions are pretty much directly proportional to fuel efficiency, however European regulations cover both CO2 and smog which is why we are still stuck with catalytic converters and particulate filters, even though they increase CO2 emissions.
It's taken the Americans a long time to jump on the CO2 bandwagon, they have been a lot more skeptical about the whole thing (though Europe is not without it's fair share of skeptics) as they have to deal daily with the more visible forms of pollution, ie. smog.
Now that they have a president who believes in CO2 expect to see them shift towards smaller, higher output engines.
the 4.0 BMW V8 out of the e9x M3 needs to have its nuts rev'd off to get peak power. Delivery is roughly comparable to that of the honda VTEC engines.
Thing is though, is the M3 is designed as the ultimate drivers car, designed so it can be (if the owner wishes of course, not all do) driven at ten tenths the whole time. So the power delivery of the engine suits the car.
the american 5.7 V8s arent designed for use by that sort of customer. They are designed for effeortless cruising and lots of low down torque. Horses for corses.