It's also worth mentioning I think the size of a pushrod V8. If you see Gen 1 SBC next to ford modular you can see how much width the cams add to the engine.
Terrible US Engines
- Thread starter Eliot
- Start date
Oh yea, OHC V8s need a lot more width around the top of the engine, especially DOHC units, ...take a look at this picture of a Ford 4.6L DOHC V8 next to a Ford 302ci 5L Windsor V8 pushrod motor. Big difference in size ...weight.
They are designed to do a lot higher mileages than european cars.
My sisters husband was amazed when he came over last year and I picked him up in our 2002 car, that only had 43k on the clock.
He said the average car over there would be well over 100k by then, most likely pushing 150k.
My sisters husband was amazed when he came over last year and I picked him up in our 2002 car, that only had 43k on the clock.
He said the average car over there would be well over 100k by then, most likely pushing 150k.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 11,919
- Location
- SE England
Yea - the life expectancy of a standard Jeep 4.0 for example, straight six and cam-in-block, 2 valves per cylinder, is 250,000 miles - and that's with just regular oil and coolant changes.
It's not uncommon for them to clock up 400k - and they aren't expected to lead gentle lives
Working machines after all!
I'm not saying that European cars won't clock up equal mileages without as little fuss - but you couldn't slack on the servicing like you could with an American engine
It's not uncommon for them to clock up 400k - and they aren't expected to lead gentle lives
Working machines after all!I'm not saying that European cars won't clock up equal mileages without as little fuss - but you couldn't slack on the servicing like you could with an American engine
Last edited:
Part of it is due to the incredibly restrictive emissions in place during the late 70s/80s/90s - they have much tighter 'smog' controls over there than we do and consequently the engines are tuned, and have a vast amount of emissions systems, to meet these regulations - reducing power.
For example, you could have had a 1970 Firebird with a 355BHP Ram-Air engine (top spec), yet by 1975 the top spec engine was a mere 290BHP.
Come 1977, the top-end engine offered a mere 200BHP - all due to restrictions imposed upon them by the government.
On the flipside, however, these engines would still make an easy 300-400ft.lb, with massive spreads of torque across the rev range, and would also run indefinitely without issues - another reason for the low outputs, so the engines were massively understressed and would clock up hundreds of thousands of miles without issue or care - as the market required. These are engines that were just designed to be used, abused, and soldier on indefinitely without anything being done to them.
Many cars were specced with automatic transmissions too, where torque and low RPM ability makes for a much more pleasant and flexible drive - again another reason for the 'low RPM, high torque' stereotypes.
They were, as a result of the supportive aftermarket, also ridiculously easy to tune and with a change of intake, carb and sometimes heads, the engine could be boosted easily back up to the 300/350BHP mark - and further, without much effort.
As another example - my old L98 engined Corvettes would make 'just' 245BHP and 340ft.lb from 5.7 litres - whilst still returning sensible economy - yet are strangled by various emissions systems and 3 (!) very restrictive catalytic convertors, in order to meet the regs. Still do 60 in under 6 seconds though
Don't get me wrong though - they could still make powerful engines all through those periods, but they were either very special order, or very rare - ZL1 Camaro from 1969 for example, with the all-alloy ZL1 engine making 430BHP and 450ft.lb, or the ZR1 Corvette making 375BHP in the late 80s at up to 8000RPM (factory limited).
They could always make engines that revved too - not uncommon for some 8 litre (!) Hemi V8s in the 60s NASCAR series to be hitting 10,000RPM (!) at which point they apparently sounded "a bit funny"
You can't take these things just on face value (i.e. the classic "man, that's a poor BHP/litre/ci/etc..."), or base opinions on the typically misquoted or misuderstood 'facts' from other people
Thanks for that info mate, never knew there was a reason behind i just thought it was old technology!
i'd disagree on the "totally" part.
yes they have their differences. But ultimately its an engine that needs to rev'd to get the best of it. Not something you usually associate with V8s
I said they were comparable - not identical.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
You have to rev an E46 M3 to get the best of it as well, is that like VTEC?
You have to rev a Motorcycle too, are they all like VTEC as well?
Yea - the life expectancy of a standard Jeep 4.0 for example, straight six and cam-in-block, 2 valves per cylinder, is 250,000 miles - and that's with just regular oil and coolant changes.
It's not uncommon for them to clock up 400k - and they aren't expected to lead gentle lives
I'm not saying that European cars won't clock up equal mileages without as little fuss - but you couldn't slack on the servicing like you could with an American engine
Because Japanese cars and trucks cannot clock those sorts of mileages ...?
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 11,919
- Location
- SE England
I refer you to the last line of my post - that and the fact that many Japanese engines aren't "heavy duty" motors like the majority of American engines - they just sit in run of the mill cars and cruise around.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 4,503
- Location
- Darkest Worcestershire
Real minis dont have much power, but are far more fun to drive than anything BMW can produce.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 713
Yeah an e46 M3 CSL or a tin pot mini cooper, I know what you mean.
- Joined
- 3 May 2004
- Posts
- 17,718
- Location
- Kapitalist Republik of Surrey
To put some of this into perspective the flathead V8 in my hotrod was built around 1959 (it was a late one), it was last rebuilt in 1978 and ended up in a German military vehicle according to the service plate, it was checked in around 2007 and found to be fine. I have it now and it gets a thrashing several times a week and always starts and never complains. It doesn't even have an oil filter. I would call that quite reliable.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 5,392
its not just US engines though, ive got a range rover P38 4.6l v8 petrol and its as sluggish as hell, not got heaps of torque either.
compare that to my dads 3l diesel bmw x3 which has twice the bhp and more torque (hopeless off road though
)
i guess it just wasnt made for anything other than slogging horse boxes around muddy fields though...
compare that to my dads 3l diesel bmw x3 which has twice the bhp and more torque (hopeless off road though
)i guess it just wasnt made for anything other than slogging horse boxes around muddy fields though...
A sports car does not need a "heavy duty" engine, and the Toyota truck motors or their sports car motors clock high mileages too.
It's not a high precision engine though, it's a lazy engine with pretty loose tolerances and so on. It wont make super power stock but it's not meant to.
A sports car is supposed to make good power though, and not have a lazy engine.
So we have in 1996 the 4.6L Mustang SVT Cobra producing 305 HP (66 HP/L). As you've elevated this beyond the standard production V8 engines to not just the Mustang, but the Mustang Cobra, I feel it quite fair to highlight another large displacement BMW engine from the era, the S62B50, better known as the V8 in the BMW M5. This engine produces 400 HP from a 4.9L (81 HP/L), 22% more power efficient than the Mustang.
Hmm, still disagree. The M3 V8 has a torque curve typical of most BMW engines i.e. lots of torque from low RPM, peak torque at low RPM, flat across the rev range. The difference is it continues flat for longer than the usual 2000-5000 RPM, and instead goes 2000-7000 RPM. We've seen this in BMW engines for a long time, and so unless every BMW that revs beyond 7000 drives like VTEC, then I don't think it's really accurate to say it's comparable to VTEC in any way (which in high performance installations provides a noticable shift in style as you work through the rev range, caused by very high RPM for peak torque and it being quite a substantial "cliff" rather than the point that happens to be 2 or 3 NM higher than the rest, which it is in the case of the M3 V8).
As I mentioned before, the M62B44 is an intentionally de-tuned engined. It's for marketing reasons and the same happens with the BMW 325i today, which is a 3.0L engine producing 218 HP (73 HP/L). Is this an indication of BMWs typical power output efficiency? No, it isn't. They had a 3.0L producing 231 HP (77 HP/L) in a mainstream road car in the year 2000, and in 2006 the 3.0L hit 272 HP (91 HP/L) again in a standard non-performance oriented road car. On occasion BMW, for reasons of manufacturing economy, will de-tune a high output engine rather than develop a new one. Your 540i was in this boat. Do you not find it odd that it's predecessor, the M60B40, produces the same 286 HP from a 4.0L V8 in 1992? That engine produces 72 HP/L 13 years before the Mustang manages to get an engine producing 65 HP/L. The M62B44 is an intentionally de-tuned engine and the Mustang engine isn't. This is different from saying the Mustang engine could have been tuned - of course it could have - but it's very different from Ford intentionally under-tuning the Mustang GT engine so that it fit with a marketing plan.
I've addressed the SVT Cobra earlier with the M5 comparison.
In fairness, there isn't a great deal of difference between the mean and median annual mileage in the UK and the US. There are certain groups of people in the US (typically in the less densely populated states) that are doing mega miles. However, the majority of the population lives in cities, and they do not clock up much different mileages than we do here. In fact, in my experience, I find the opposite. Use autotrader.com and check the mileage of the typical cars that are available in, say, California (most populous state). Generally lower than you'd expect here, because people can afford to have more cars.
This is do agree with. American engines, especially the big V8s, are inherently more reliable than their European counterparts. This is a function of their simplicity and unstressed components and a relatively relaxed and "easy" driving style. They are really nice engines to drive, though often, I find, some of the transmissions let them down.Yea - the life expectancy of a standard Jeep 4.0 for example, straight six and cam-in-block, 2 valves per cylinder, is 250,000 miles - and that's with just regular oil and coolant changes.
It's not uncommon for them to clock up 400k - and they aren't expected to lead gentle lives
I'm not saying that European cars won't clock up equal mileages without as little fuss - but you couldn't slack on the servicing like you could with an American engine
This is the point, I think. American V8s are designed to be simple, reliable and cost effective. Versions of these engines in higher states of tune appear in Mustangs and other performance/muscle cars, but the really highly tuned versions rarely appear in mainstream production cars. German V8s on the other hand, and particularly BMW, are not necessarily designed to be simple, infinitely reliable and cheap. They are generally closer to the cutting edge of engine technology, and because of this are not using 60-year proven components and thus do have the odd design flaw and can go wrong without warning, and they are not cheap. An E60 M5 engine is not the commodity a big American V8 is. These reasons are why BMW engines produce more power and more torque and do it before their American counterparts. They aren't terrible, they are designed for a different purpose. However, they are not, by any means, efficient in terms of power per litre.
Last edited:
What you say is fair enough PMKeates, I made my point well enough anyway I think. Which was really just to say that American engines are not poor at all, some are yes but many aren't. And that they aren't all as inefficient as some people seem to think either, they can run with the best of them pretty much when they actually try to.
[TW]Fox;16309086 said:
its comparable in that it likes to be rev'd like the VTEC does.
Its certainly more comparable with the VTEC engines than it is with the lazy power delivery of the yank V8s
thats what im trying to get at. Rather than trying to claim that the BMW M3 V8 is the same as a honda VTEC.
