Engine Sizes

rypt said:
No-one is arguing you have to replace displacement, but why not make the best use you can of the displacement that you do have.

If using cams can gain you an extra 15% hp/torque and an extra 10% fuel efficiency ... why not use it?
Click to expand...

C O S T?

Engine height?

Dont know, dont care?

Charm and character - the V8 has lot going for it, in a range of valve opening methods.

How can you had some adament views on fact yet drive such a ghey car?
 
DreXeL said:
Is it really that hard for you to understand? He likes the feel of old-school pushrod V8s. The fact that they are 'technologically inferior' doesn't come in to it, he likes the feel and sound.
Click to expand...

Exactly, that was precisely my point, I like the sound and feel of them, the character of the engine if you will.

Ultimate power output, fuel economy and precision isn't so important to me. As long as you have 'enough' power and torque, I do like a lot of torque for easy wafting.

Having said that, (bear in mind I'm not an engineer) but it seems to me that if you want to tune an engine for some serious power, you're better off starting with a big V8 in a low state of tune and changing bits, tweaking and tuning it ...add a supercharger perhaps to get serious power than working with an engine with less than half the natural capacity and half the number of cylinders. Especially if you want it to be robust and long lasting without the need for frequent short service intervals and costly injectors, pumps and turbos all waiting to go bang on you.

For me though, sound and feel, the 'character' of the engine make or break a cars 'fun factor'.
 
Last edited:
If you want big power, you design the engine form the outset to be able to make big power and be able to make it reliably really.
 
I suppose if you are building a purpose built super car then yes, but I'm thinking more about the likes of the old US muscle cars and pony cars ...tune what you got sort of approach. Besides those old Chevvy V8s in a crate were and are cheap, and are extremely capable starting points for some seriously big numbers if you so desire.

There is no need to spend massive amounts of money on R&D and manufacturing for a purpose built performance engine a lot of the time. I guess it really depends on what you want it for though, I was initially just talking about what I 'like' ...not what's best.
 
-Ad- said:
Still at uni I think. But coming out of uni he is the type a company would hate, Mr I think i know it all ex-student.

;)
Click to expand...

No, I'm Mr I know more than half the people posting in this thread and am prepared to actually to provide some technical info to backup my points unlike Jonny.
 
rypt said:
No, I'm Mr I know more than half the people posting in this thread and am prepared to actually to provide some technical info to backup my points unlike Jonny.
Click to expand...

If you can only speak in technical terms then you dont understand what you are talking about. Odd how you have also gone on to state that half the audience wont be able to aprehend what you are saying.

Reading back through I dont think I even understand what you are actually trying to say. I do however see how you are spinning regurgitation into a sentence that you believe contains structure.

Where is this 'technical' info then? I think its more than a the V8 that needs a pushrod in this thread.

If you want big power, you design the engine form the outset to be able to make big power and be able to make it reliably really.
Click to expand...

Like most consumers you actually buy the car based on the attributes you desire.
 
Jonnycoupe said:
Where is this 'technical' info then? I think its more than a the V8 that needs a pushrod in this thread.
Click to expand...

I said that pushrod is antiquated technology that does not let you control the timing of the valves with any sort of precision or certainty. (+- 90degrees in some really poor pushrod designs) That was the sum total of my original point. I was simply baffled by someone saying they prefer something less good.

At which point Lashout questioned the need for valve timing and decided that I was somehow talking about reliability (which I wasn't).
Closely followed by Muffin and Fox who seem to also not understand the need for good valve timing control.

Now if you don't mind, I need to go finish modelling an N52 intake in GT Power :(
 
Last edited:
Yes, but rypt, the point you seem to be missing about preference, in this case, mine, is that how good something is 'technically' ...isn't actually the most important factor in why I prefer one over the other. I am not making the judgements I am necessarily based on technical capability.

I think I made it quite clear what I meant, as did several other people, engine 'character' ...so how it sounds, how it 'feels' and thus how it makes me feel, does it make me smile etc. And by that I do not mean sitting their in a spandex suit stroking the block and eyeing up the pistons (oh god, get it out of my head!).
 
rypt said:
I said that pushrod is antiquated technology that does not let you control the timing of the valves with any sort of precision or certainty. (+- 90degrees in some really poor pushrod designs) That was the sum total of my original point. I was simply baffled by someone saying they prefer something less good.
Click to expand...

Thats was your 'technical info'? An Opinion?! Yet my posts do not feature such indepth 'technical info'?

Get used to people not thinking like you, I have a feeling its going to a frequent occurance.

I guess Drexel is also a wally for prefering 'less good' carbs over his cars stock Fuel injection setup?
 
How is it an opinion, it is a fact that you cannot get as good valve control with a pushrod setup as you would with cams, even when you go to great and expensive lengths/materials.

And Moeks, something like an S65/85 all feel / sound better than your Jag V8 I would bet, lazy power never sounds as nice as an engine in a higher state of tune to me as they sing unlike lazy engines.
 
rypt said:
That was the sum total of my original point. I was simply baffled by someone saying they prefer something less good.

At which point Lashout questioned the need for valve timing and decided that I was somehow talking about reliability (which I wasn't).
Closely followed by Muffin and Fox who seem to also not understand the need for good valve timing control.
Click to expand...

You seemed to overlook my comparision to an infinitely more advanced engine with quad cams, that made less power, less torque, and was unable to rev as highly as the 'outdated' pushrod engine.

That's what I was actually talking about.

My post was nothing to do with reliability? The whole point of it was that you can engineer pushrods to deliver accurate, high-RPM, operation if required.
 
Last edited:
rypt said:
And Moeks, something like an S65/85 all feel / sound better than your Jag V8 I would bet, lazy power never sounds as nice as an engine in a higher state of tune to me as they sing unlike lazy engines.
Click to expand...

That's your opinion though, I like the burble with a nice deep rumble and then a roar when you boot it, more than the higher pitched shoutyness you 'tend' to get with a more highly tuned engine, I'm not a big fan of Ferrari engine sounds, I much prefer an El Cheapo Mustang in that regard, is it better? ...no, not really, not by most technical measures it's not at least, I like it more though.

My Jag isn't a V8 though, it's a V6, I did used to have a V8 Jag though. Those engines are designed to be quiet and smooth more than full of burble and what not anyway, different engine for a different application.

Why are we even still on this anyway? ...I thought I made my position in response to the thread title quite clear and for whatever reason you keep ...well actually I don't even know what you are getting at to be honest, you do keep posting though.
 
Last edited:
Robbie G said:
Come on all you 'must be large capacity N/A' luddites, get with the programme. A decent turbocharger implementation and you won't be able to tell the difference (feel wise) between a 2.0T and a 3.0 N/A.

The noise might not be as impressive, but in a decade we'll all be driving electrics anyway, so get used to it!

I'm not saying I like it, I'm simply saying there's nothing that we can do about it.
Click to expand...

Couldn't disagree more...

I've yet to drive a single turbo'd vehicle that doesn't suffer from even the smallest amount of turbo lag... I am a little over-sensitive to it though, with my motorsport background.

They are improving though - a HUGE amount... I had the opportunity to drive the latest 911 turbo a few weeks ago and the lag is nearly gone... but i was still able to pick up on it a bit in low-revs and I find it incredibly annoying.

I'll stick with my 4.0L supercharged V8... don't care that I average 23mpg... I average it in style :)

*edit*... to add to that though... I love the noise and kick-in of a turbo... but not enough to get over the lag... personal preference

And... I am rather impressed with the sudden ramp-up in output that seems to be coming out this year... one of not is the DS3R which I think is the only attractive citroen from the last ~30ish years... 225BHP from a turbo'd 1.6 in what would be expected to be a 'reliable' production car... nice

I just wish they would apply the same efficiency tech to larger displacements too... imagining a 4.8L V12 with 675bhp (incredibly basic extrapolation to make the point) is rather nice...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom