I want an American V8, but by year 2012...

[CurtEgerer]

>>>"Let's not screw this one up by educating them..."<<<

Well don't show them this! 2L / 4 cylinder / 300HP / 700NM Torque

[Mule]

It might be a little harder than you think.

[strupgolf]

Hey, I love the old V8 just like any old car nut. It has power gallore. I just think it is a thing of the past FOR THE BIG 3. They might like it, but powers beyond their control will tell them what to do, and thats the sad part. When Gov't gets involved, things go to hell.

[Mule]

Originally Posted by strupgolf

The V8 as we know it is a thing of the past, not even good for today's cars. I love them, but only in old muscle cars. There are so many other types of power systems that are as powerful and effecient that can be used. As fuel gets scarce, look for someone to get 400HP out of a 4 banger and get 30 mpg. It will happen.

Which way is it? Only a few Mfg's would disagree.
Porsche
MB
Ferrari
Rolls Royce
Bentley
BMW
GM
Ford
Chrysler

Nobody of note, right?

[strupgolf]

Well Mule, I guess you just dont get what I'm saying. I dont think I can make my point any more clear. Have a good day.

[Mule]

I got what you're saying. You think "The V8 as we know it is a thing of the past, not even good for today's cars." You would just be wrong. There are without doubt some stout 4 or 6cyl engines. But is the V8 past it's prime, not a freakin chance. V8s still rule, period. Oh yeah, I left Lexus & Infinity off that list.

[dd74]

Well, my question - probably to the engineering types onboard - is whether the V8 has truly lived it's last RPM? Can it no longer be developed? I agree with the comment on this thread that states some V6s get as poor (or worse) mileage than V8s because they strain so hard to move equal mass.

I do think there's one aspect of a V8 that a V6 or blown inline 4 will never truly equal, which is torque. And torque is more needed for day-to-day driving than horsepower.

So my question of any given V8 is whether peak torque uses as much gasoline as peak horsepower? Every V8 I've ever driven in, seems to barely break a sweat when it's at peak torque. Could it be that at peak torque, the engine is actually at its most efficient?

But then given the advent of the new-world diesels, maybe this is a moot point. After all, it's been shown a 1.8 liter four cylinder Honda turbodiesel can equal or surpass the torque of a 5.0 liter Chevrolet V8.

[dd74]

Here's more on the Ford EcoBoost engine:

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/06/detroit-2008-ford-launches-ecoboost-gas-turbo-direct-injection/

http://www.autobloggreen.com/photos/detroit-2008-ford-ecoboost-gdti-engines/558306/

[Mule]

Here's my take on it. At some point, when development has advanced to the point where 200lb engines have flat, broad torque curves and 400hp, V8s will no longer be practical. That will be a while.

[dd74]

Originally Posted by Mule

Here's my take on it. At some point, when development has advanced to the point where 200lb engines have flat, broad torque curves and 400hp, V8s will no longer be practical. That will be a while.

They have - Chrysler did in 1963.

Here's the car that engine went into:

Here's how it looks under the hood:


Now, fast-forward to now:

Used in the The UH-1 Huey and Bell Jet Ranger helicopters. Easily under 200 lbs, and way more hp than 400.

So the question is, can these be adapted to automobiles?

[Mule]

Sure can. Won't pull a greased string out of a cat's ass. ZERO torque, no throttle response, like any jet.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Are you kidding? Turbines are ALL torque. Shoot, you can probably find a timed-out Pratt & Whitney PT6 engine no longer legal for use in aircraft that will make 1,200+ ft-lb all day long without hiccuping.

Of course the gas mileage would be a bit of a problem. . .

In all seriousness though, this is another example of government stupidity and I'm just fine with keeping them in the dark on the reality that fuel burn is more-or-less directly proportional to engine output, regardless of # of cylinders.

If I can't have a V8 (or a V12) in the future, I'll just run two (or three) 4 bangers. Fine w/ me.

[dd74]

Originally Posted by Mule

ZERO torque, no throttle response, like any jet.

Stats for the gas-turbine say 425lbs of torque at 0 RPM.

Here's the rest:

* 130 horsepower at 3,600 rpm (output shaft speed); 425 lb-ft of torque at zero rpm!
* Weight: 410 lb - 25 inches long, 25.5 inches wide, 27.5 inches tall (without accessories, which make the overall length 35 inches).
* Fuel requirements: what've you got? diesel, unleaded gas, kerosene, JP-4, others. No adjustments needed to switch from one to the other.
* Compressor: centrifugal, single-stage compressor with 4:1 pressure ratio, 80% efficiency, 2.2 lb/sec air flow
* First stage turbine: axial, single-stage, 87% efficiency, inlet temperature 1,700 degrees F.
* Second-stage turbine: axial, single-stage, 84% efficiency, max speed 45,700 rpm
* Regenerator: dual rotating disks, 90% effectiveness, 22 rpm max speed
* Burner: single can, reverse flow, 95% efficiency
* Maximum gas generator speed: 44,600 rpm
* Maximum output speed, after reduction gears: 4,680 rpm
* Exhaust temperature at full power: 500 degrees Farenheit.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Throttle response in turbine engines is a lot better than it used to be in the days of the 707 too!

It's not "right now" power, but it's pretty close. The design (limiting rotating mass, etc.) has gotten a lot better. You no longer have to think 15 seconds ahead of a turbine powered aircraft.

[dd74]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

In all seriousness though, this is another example of government stupidity and I'm just fine with keeping them in the dark on the reality that fuel burn is more-or-less directly proportional to engine output, regardless of # of cylinders.

If I can't have a V8 (or a V12) in the future, I'll just run two (or three) 4 bangers. Fine w/ me.

You'll still be able to get a V12. How about the V12 twin turbocharged Audi diesel? Same engine as in the R8 and the Audi LeMans race car. 550+ hp/750+ pounds of torque, and in a 5,000+ pound SUV, 0-60 in 5 seconds.

Oh wait! No, scratch that. Because you live in Cali., no diesel V12 for you. This state knows what's better for the consumer.

"Go Metro!"

[NKN84944]

Originally Posted by strupgolf

The V8 as we know it is a thing of the past, not even good for today's cars. I love them, but only in old muscle cars. There are so many other types of power systems that are as powerful and efficient that can be used. As fuel gets scarce, look for someone to get 400HP out of a 4 banger and get 30 mpg. It will happen.

Ok, but you can get 400 hp and close to 30mpg out of an C6 Corvette right now. The big V8s do not have bad fuel economy if the body of the car is light. The current aluminum v8s are much lighter than the heavy iron of the past. My GTO gets just as good gas mileage as an STI, is just as quick, and is 10x more comfortable to drive as a daily driver (yes I know it isn't the most attractive car but at least I don't look like a ricer). Yes the American v8s are not as advanced as others, but guess what engine won the v8 shoot out in the 1/08 R&T issue (LS3). Sure the new huge v8s that are being produced won't be as good with the mileage since the cars they are in are so heavy (300 SRT8, Charger SRT8, Challenger, etc.). Here is a quick comparison of a an 07 STI and 06 Vette from msn auto.

[Mule]

V8s rule & will for a long time to come.

[Mule]

Mark Anderson annihilating GT2, Cup cars, a Ferrari, what have you:

[onewhippedpuppy]

GM discontinued their development of the new Northstar motor, and is now focusing on the 300 HP+ V6 found in the new CTS. With the big 3, I think the V8's days are numbered.

The new economy standards are idiotic, at this point MAYBE Smart can meet their standards. As others said though, that's what happen when a bunch of politicians with no engineering knowledge try to legislate reality.

I think we'll see a big drop in power in gas motors, more hybrids, and more diesels. You'll still have high powered cars, but the gas-guzzler tax/fine will be reflected in the price. Mule, where you are lacking in your judgement is assuming that power will stay constant. I don't think this is the case. I agree that it's far easier to get more power out of more displacement, but it's easy to get good MPG out of small power and small displacement. 120 HP 4-cylinder easily gets better MPG than a 400 HP V8, for example. I predict we will see a big drop in power for the average family vehicle, as companies struggle to meet the new standards using current technology. Eventually the new rules will be a catalyst for the advancement of engine technology, which I predict was probably the govt's goal in the first place.

[the]

Isn't the problem with fuel economy, on today' gas guzzlers, more because of WEIGHT than because of engine configuration?

Many of the vehicles on the road today are morbidly obese. A BMW 645, for example, is something like 4500 lbs. Even the 3 series is approaching 4000 lbs. A Cayenne is 5500 lbs. Even small economy cars seem to be 3500+ lbs.

Moving that kind of weight is tough.