Terrible US Engines

There wasn't a V8 M5 available in 1996...

As I mentioned before, the M62B44 is an intentionally de-tuned engined.

What, detuned just like American V8s!? In 1965 you could walk outside of your local Chevy dealer with the keys to a 300BHP Nova with the power coming from a 5.4L V8.

In 1982 The Trans AM was available with a 165BHP 5.7L V8... Do you think the GM engineers just forgot how to design engines, or do you believe that the engines available in just about every american car since the 1970s has bee serverely detuned to meet emissions laws?
I specifically said same "era"; the M5 engine was available in 1998, not exactly a thousand years from the 1996 of the SVT Cobra.

In 1965 they were using the SAE gross horsepower rating. This was a, excuse the pun, "grossly overrated" measure of the engine's power. In the early 70s they changed to the SAE net horsepower rating. The difference between these two ratings is massive - some engines that achieved 400 HP before the change to net produced 235 HP after the change. The Chevrolet Nova did not have 300 HP by any of today's standards.

Every American car since the 1970s has had to meet emissions requirements and be measured using a power rating that is remotely reasonable i.e. the engine is expected to have the exhaust attached, which it wasn't for SAE gross, and they can't have big "road simulation" compressors forcing air in to the engine. If you look at the power figures for American engines just before the early 70s you'll see that they are mentally overrated.
What is "power efficiency"? Why do you seem to think specific power output so important at these large engine sizes?
Because power relative to engine capacity is the whole purpose of this debate?
granted its 80s but still How did they manage to make 216 horsepower out of a 5.7 litre v8?
From the opening post - a question of why American engines don't seem to produce much horsepower for their size.
Sorry old chap, but what the hell, did you just make up your own measure of efficiency? It doesnt fly!

What about other variables? How much fuel it uses? The type and gearing of the transmission? etc
We are talking about power efficiency in terms of per unit of cylinder capacity. This is flagrantly obvious from reading the thread.
yeah but the americans dont do premium fuel

stated power outputs allow them to use crap fuel in their expensive performance cars i believe. Maybe one of our resident experts can confirm / deny.

I know that modern BMW ratings are based upon them needing 97RON fuel as thats what it states in the manual, but i'm led to believe its different in the US and they dont require them to run super ?
Americans do have premium fuel. You can get premium fuel at the pumps that is as good as ours, short of special fuels such as BP Ultimate 102, which you can of course still get somewhere if you are willing to pay. Lum explains it in more detail.

The reality that American engines generally produce less power per litre than European engines is undeniable.
 
Americans do have premium fuel.

i said the americans "dont do super" as in "do you do lunch"

i was reffering to the fact that although offered its not very popular over there. Your average american motorist thinks its all a con and just uses normal pump gas.

Yes you can buy it, but the same level of knowledge that its better for your engine isnt out there like it is in europe.
 
I can't really comment on most of the content of this thread, as I've never owned or even driven an American V8....but how on earth can you come to the conclusion that an engine is "terrible" based on a game and some numbers?

Exactly.

While not American (despite the rumours) the 6.75L V8 found in Bentleys was by the standards of this thread terrible. 300BHP from 6.75L AND a turbo that you could fit your head into. On paper the 4.4L twin turbo BMW engine (derived from the M62 mentioned earlier) that was set to replace it in the Arrange crushed the old unit. Twin Turbochargers instead of one massive one, DOHC instead of OHV, more fuel efficient, more powerful, quieter, etc. Well, it turned out that customers absolutely hated it, and as a result they sold about 7, gave up and redesigned the 6.75L sticking very closely to the designs of the old engine... An engine that car trace its routes back to the 50s... and guess that they are doing with the new mulsanne...

The point I'm trying to make is sometimes stuff that doesn't make any sense on paper can make so much sense in real life...
 
I think we are deviating from reality a little when we are justifying the fact that the everyday American car produces not a lot of a HP from a fairly large V8, when we begin comparing them to a £250,000 Bentley Arnage.
 
Exactly.

While not American (despite the rumours) the 6.75L V8 found in Bentleys was by the standards of this thread terrible. 300BHP from 6.75L AND a turbo that you could fit your head into.

Bentley is not a sports car though, a Mustang is.
 
We are talking about power efficiency in terms of per unit of cylinder capacity. This is flagrantly obvious from reading the thread.

But that's absolutely ridiculous, which is what I'm trying to get at. Capacity has no significant bearing on power output with all the different types of engine, as again, this thread proves. And if it has no bearing, it has no relevance to efficiency.
 
Bentley is not a sports car though, a Mustang is.

The corvette is though, and thats plenty competitive with the euro cars

The mustang isnt made to go up against the corvette, its just not that sort of car. Ford leave that up to the tuners.

Yes they could get the same 350bhp from a V6 or whatever, but it doesnt suit the characterisitcs that the american drivers want. They want big lazy V8s, not that the americans can only make big lazy low power V8s

thats the point we're making.
 
Well part of my point, although I think that got a bit lost with all the stats I was spewing, was actually that horsepower per litre is by no means the be all and end all, after a point it really isn't that important ...unless it's a full blown performance car of course. The 'feel' of the engine, the way it delivers it's power .. the way it sounds and the reliability and robustness of the engine are bigger issues really past a point.

Well they are unless you are talking about super-cars anyway. I really love the 'lazy V8' feel myself, the burble, burble, burble of a big old V8 ...makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside :) ...and I am by no means the only one. the Americans love that sort of thing, hence ...their engines.
 
Last edited:
Muscle cars were never made to be sports cars though, thats the thing. They were made to race from lights to lights and drag race!

They never made them to go around corners like MG's and so on.
 
Yes they could get the same 350bhp from a V6 or whatever, but it doesnt suit the characterisitcs that the american drivers want. They want big lazy V8s, not that the americans can only make big lazy low power V8s

ABSOLUTELY THIS.

The Ford V6 EcoBoost has been marketed heavily as being similar in character (power curve) or better than a V8. That's because many have it instilled in their brains that V8 = Good. It's what people want.
 
Muscle cars were never made to be sports cars though, thats the thing. They were made to race from lights to lights and drag race!

Absolutely, this is the point ...well that and just the way they look and the noise they make ...the way they make you feel. 75% of the muscle car thing is theatre ...it's all show and noise. Fast is good but after a point ..it just doesn't matter. That point is probably somewhere around 300bhp at a guees, for many ...although you can get modern muscle cars at 426bhp from the factory if you want some more serious bite.
 
But that's absolutely ridiculous, which is what I'm trying to get at. Capacity has no significant bearing on power output with all the different types of engine, as again, this thread proves. And if it has no bearing, it has no relevance to efficiency.
No significant bearing? It has a very significant bearing when you aren't talking about making engines from used kitchen utensils or making them in very high states of tune barely usable in a road car/at the cutting edge of technology.
 
Here we go

BMW m3 saloon 4.0 V8 420bhp in the UK

http://www.bmw.co.uk/bmwuk/pricesandspecifications/0,,1156___bs-TQ==@bb-TTNfTEk=@sit-bmwuk,00.html

414bhp in the US

http://www.bmwusa.com/standard/content/vehicles/2011/m/m3sedan/default.aspx

same car, same engine, different fuel. Granted not a massive difference, but at least prooves my theory that they are dyno'd using different grade fuels.

That is the difference between the metric hp (PS) and imperial hp. 414bhp IS 420PS.

Same as the Bugatti Veyron doesn't have 1001hp it's actually only 987bhp when using proper units.
 
Because that is what a sports car is, it revs high and has high HP with decent/good torque.
High torque, low HP low rev. is truck engines not sports car engines.
I don't think it's so black and white.... Doesn't the Dodge Viper use a truck engine?
 
No significant bearing? It has a very significant bearing when you aren't talking about making engines from used kitchen utensils or making them in very high states of tune barely usable in a road car/at the cutting edge of technology.

No it really doesnt, they can come in many states of tune, hugely varying outputs, all commercially viable without changing displacement. It's not a stable enough metric to use for 'efficiency', picking off one or 2 examples.
 
No it really doesnt, they can come in many states of tune, hugely varying outputs, all commercially viable without changing displacement. It's not a stable enough metric to use for 'efficiency', picking off one or 2 examples.
The point of the thread was to answer why American engines don't produce much power for the size of the engine. Some people denied this was the case, and I am proving that actually, it is the case. Whether this is a good metric of whatever is irrelevant to that fact. I am well aware of the reasons for such a situation but it doesn't change the fact that the situation exists.
 
okok, I was just taken aback by it being used as a measure for 'efficiency'. :)

I personally believe in what MrLOL said and I quoted a few posts back, people just have to stop looking at the numbers.
 
The point of the thread was to answer why American engines don't produce much power for the size of the engine. Some people denied this was the case, and I am proving that actually, it is the case. Whether this is a good metric of whatever is irrelevant to that fact. I am well aware of the reasons for such a situation but it doesn't change the fact that the situation exists.

By size you mean swept volume. The 7 litre LS7 engine is actually physically smaller (and lighter) than the 5 litre BMW v10 from the M5.
 
Back
Top Bottom