Jump to content
EUROPAS GROßE
SPORTWAGEN COMMUNITY

Engines


Speedster25

Empfohlene Beiträge

Well, since we were talking about engines in the BMW forum. I thought up of a talk regarding engines.

My question to you all is, what do you think is the best natural aspiration engine (best engine maker) out there?

also

What do you all think is the best tuner car out?

For the first one, I think Ferrari makes the best natural aspirated engines, they seem to get the most possible torque and power out of it. The best engine I think is the Tipo F140 by Ferrari which is used in the Enzo. There was one put in the F50, but that was modified and wasn't original.

For the second I think its the Supra, they've always seemed to be the fastest, even faster than the Skyline's. Regarding these two, I saw in car and driver that there might be a 500 hp Toyota to come out, and there is a new 450 hp Skyline GT-R coming out.

Jetzt registrieren, um Themenwerbung zu deaktivieren »
  • Antworten 59
  • Erstellt
  • Letzte Antwort

Ferrari or Honda typically get the most hp/L using NA, but their torque is inferior to BMW who comprimise a small amount of Hp/L to give good drivability across the rev range.

E36 EURO M3 has 100hp/L peak torque @ 3250 rpm peak power @7400rpm and torque never gets below 83% of the maximum amount from 1500rpm to 7600rpm. You won't find a flatter torque curve on any car FI or NA let alone one that has 100hp/L!

E46 M3 has 114Nm/L which is better than any honda and Ferrari that i can think of.

Also it depends on what you define as better!!!

E36 EURO M3 has 100hp/L peak torque @ 3250 rpm peak power @7400rpm and torque never gets below 83% of the maximum amount from 1500rpm to 7600rpm. You won't find a flatter torque curve on any car FI or NA let alone one that has 100hp/L!

E46 M3 has 114Nm/L which is better than any honda and Ferrari that i can think of.!

you havent seen the torque curve of a b16b then the f20c comes real close too though. what is the conversion rate of nm to ft/lbs. anyway? im pretty sure i can find something thats better.

as far as the comment about worked supras being faster than worked skylines: im going to have to go ahead and uh disagree with you on that...

also the most important thing about tuning is the area under the torque curve. with in reason, one could argue that all that the real number that matters in tuning the engine is the area under that curve and the setup yeilding the best area should dictate the rest of the setup like gear ratios.

that said, hp/l doesnt really mean anything. yes you are hearing that from a honda fan, but then how do you account for artificial displacement? you cant really label a certain amount of extra ccs per psi or anything. thats still not accurate

the best gauge of efficiency would somehow incorperate the area under the torque curve and fuel economy under all types of driving.

yea i guess i am kinda rambling.

you havent seen the torque curve of a b16b then the f20c comes real close too though. what is the conversion rate of nm to ft/lbs. anyway? im pretty sure i can find something thats better.

as far as the comment about worked supras being faster than worked skylines: im going to have to go ahead and uh disagree with you on that...

1 lb.ft = ~1.35..Nm

The b16b and f20c come close in which particular area? The b16b from the civic type R and the f20c in the s2000 have torque curves that are far from flat from what iu've seen, the f20c has 63% of max torque at 1500rpm which is far behind the 83% in the E36 M3. The 2.2L might be better but we don't get it here. They make more hp/L but less Nm/L and peak torque at a higher rpm aswell. On the torque characteristic front they can't compare with BMW's.

true but do you understand my point about hp/l or Nm/l they dont really hold much ground.

i never am below 1500 in my honda, unless im idling. driving like a granny to save fuel i shift at 2500 bringing me down to 1700-1800range. the torque till that point to any honda driver is useless. im actually having trouble finding dyno charts for the f20c that go that low :lol: i cant find any dynos of the 2.2 but i doubt that its flatter.

b16b: i know its not that clear and its the right amount of torque for a 1.6, but look at that rpm range!

b16bstockecu.jpg

f20c: yea i know there is a difference once in vtec but from a little above 3100 rpm and on it stays above 83% of the maximum output. which is close with exception to the preceeding 3100rpms X-)

http://dynoperformance.com/jpgraph/graph_hptq.php?ID=468&width=680&height=450.png

sorry i couldnt get the link to serve as an image. i guess it only works with gifs and jpegs.

Hp/l and Ft. lbs./l doesn't really matter as much as the actual amount of horsepower of torque. I would rather have an Enzo than a M3, even if the M3 has 5nm/l more than the Enzo (as you claim. I didn't even see the M3 have 114nm/l, I saw 109 which is the same as the Enzo. I also see that in the future there is going to be a 2007 Ferrari F60, with a V-12 800+ hp, you can pretty much assume there is going to be 600+ ft. lbs. of torque. And that is preliminary, it could be 850, 650.

as i think bleh said earlier, the most important measure is the area under the torque curve. That is in essence how much power the car has. The argument about low end torque might make an engine more driveable and verstatile, this has been the triumph of BMW engines, they have performance as good as anyone's up high and don't give up any driveability to get it, but if you are talking about balls to the wall acceleration, all that really matters is top end. The only time you'll touch the bottom end of your torque curve is rolling through first, after you shift to second, you are still 2/3 the way to the redline, shift to 3rd, you are 2/3 the way to the redline again, so what really makes the difference in all out acceleration. Some automakers give up driveability for top end (caugh honda caugh, caugh ferrari caugh). Anyone who tries telling me an S2000 has low end torque period is confused. At like 6k when the VTEC shifts over, that engine lights up, down low it doesn't have too much. Most ferrari engines are the same, they are made to be like race-cars. The M3 is great because it has it all. As cars are tuned higher, their torque bands just sort of naturally narrow. When my M42 powered 318i was stock, it had a fairly flat torque curve. After significant modification, my torque band has really slimmed from about 4,800-6,800.

Well, to bring this discussion back to Earth, I'm going to say that BMW builds the "best" engines, because as noted before, they generally provide the the best balance of everything. Not the most reletive torque, horsepower, or fuel efficiency, just the best balance of everything within it's given displacement. They also don't cost a fortune to maintain like say, a Ferrari engine. That said, Ferrari, and especially Honda sure as hell deserve honorable mention.

I don't pay much attention to tuner cars for the most part, so I won't make judgement there. But I will at least agree the a tuned Supra does indeed have about as much potential as a Skyline. The Nissan's body control is somewhat greater, but as far as all out power goes, it's a bit of a draw. They are both good platforms for crazy modification.

To Speedster - an NA Ferrari with anything close to 600lb.ft. of torque is highly unlikely. The F430 is a step up in this regard, but generally, major grunt is not part of their formula, but rather top end.

yea bmw does take the cake for best na engine when you care about low end torque. well different strokes for different folks.(punn intended :lol: get it, bore, rod ratio, stroke?) i love mid and top end torque. it does suck trying to go faster without downshifting while at 2000rpm, but when i race i am never below 3000rpm anyway, even from a dig. 8)

Anzeige eBay
Geschrieben
Geschrieben

Hallo Speedster25,

 

schau doch mal hier zum Thema Zubehör für Verschiedenes über Autos (Anzeige)? Eventuell gibt es dort etwas Passendes.

  • Gefällt Carpassion.com 1
Hp/l and Ft. lbs./l doesn't really matter as much as the actual amount of horsepower of torque. I would rather have an Enzo than a M3, even if the M3 has 5nm/l more than the Enzo (as you claim. I didn't even see the M3 have 114nm/l, I saw 109 which is the same as the Enzo. I also see that in the future there is going to be a 2007 Ferrari F60, with a V-12 800+ hp, you can pretty much assume there is going to be 600+ ft. lbs. of torque. And that is preliminary, it could be 850, 650.

The e46 m3 has 114Nm/L actually probably 112-113 becasue its not exactly 3.2L but the E36 has the same as the ENzo in terms of Nm/L at 109Nm/L which you probably were looking at. Looking at all NA cars there seems to be an upper limit to the amount of torque you can get and it is about this 115Nm/L mark so for the F60 to get 810Nm it will need ~7.0L which is unlikely. I haven't found an engine with more than 115Nm/L but keep looking i may be wrong. About 90-100Nm/L is common for all NA engines even non high performance cars.

As for area under the curve this is hardly fair when comparing an Enzo, M3 and a 2.0L honda. I suppose you could work out the area under the curve and normalise it by dividing by the engine displacement which is fairer. But i'll leave that for someone else to do since i don't have access to the Enzo's torque curve anyway.

If any one can do it, Ferrari can. It might be unlikely, but it is still possible. Just having a V12 producing 800+hp (NA) is amazing. Also another engine that I haven't said anything about is the Porsche Carrera GT. 605 hp from a 5.7 liter V10, thats if not better as good as the Enzo. And 435ft. lbs. of torque (587.25nm), is great for a V10 especially a 5.7 liter. That is 103nm/l, which is still great. Imagine this as a V12. It would blow the doors off anything.

I also will say that even 5 cars were produced the McLaren F1 LM, haad great numbers.

6.064l V12

680bhp

520ft. lbs. of torque(702nm)

112bhp/l

115.75nm/l

And yet it only went 225 mph, slower than the original F1(240 mph). It was lighter and more powerful. Even though friction is what slows the car down.

my point is that this whatever per displacement is not a good way of determining the efficiency of an engine.

the only whatever per liter that should be taken into account is the distance per liter or gallon. that combined with the area under the usable torque curve is what should dictated "a well designed engine" making the most with the given resources. the key resource in my argument is the fuel.

the only whatever per liter that should be taken into account is the distance per liter or gallon. that combined with the area under the usable torque curve is what should dictated "a well designed engine" making the most with the given resources. the key resource in my argument is the fuel.

the engine with the bigger displacement will usually have more area under the curve so unless you account for different engine sizes you can't compare an engine of 6L to another of 1.6L using this.

The M3 is basically 60% of a McLaren F1 and likely has the same torque curve chracteristics and redline, but absolute torque is higher with the 6.1L than the 3.2L so the area under the curve is much larger becasue of the larger displacement.

Thats why i suggested normalising the area under the curve to account for this.

Theres always Brake Mean Effective Pressure aswell which is like an average cylinder pressure throughout the cycle. Which "normalises" the power by rpm and volume.

BMEP = peak power x 120 / swept vol / rpm

power is in kw, swept vol in m^3, BMEP in kPa

If I may interrupt I guess that comparing power/displacement ratios including small displacement engines and large, is like comparing a spider running it's own length faster than a cheetah is!

All (almost) motorcycles have more hp/torgue than cars because of weight, lorries less hp/torgue.

If a car is lighter, I don't think it's wrong to say that in that car it better fits an engine with more hp/torgue than in the heavier car. I doubt the manufacturer find it difficult to make hp/litre high when they decided they want such an engine in a light sportscar! A manufacturer only thinks about 'right engine for the right car'.

the engine with the bigger displacement will usually have more area under the curve so unless you account for different engine sizes you can't compare an engine of 6L to another of 1.6L using this.
why wont it work? im pretty sure a 6.0l engine will consume much more gas than a 1.6l. i know what i am suggesting is pretty theoretical but it would be the best way of rating an engines efficiency, right?

wouldnt brake mean effective pressure favor engines with a very peaky torque curve? area under the curve i think is still the best method of determining power output. when your tuning for racing your looking to make the most power that will be used by the transmission. but we wont go into that.

roughly, displacement = torque but it usually will also consume more fuel, but an efficient design will save gas will still creating a decent amount of torque. yes fuel consumption matters greatly in racing also!

thunf: we are talking about engine design. yes it definitely depends on the car and particularly weight, but we arent talking about that. we are trying to limit the discussion to only the engine. well "the best naturally aspirated engine".

the topic of best tuner car, mentioned earlier in this thread, was in another thread thats aging.

Ok.

Building a great NA engine would be finding a good balance, I think. The less water that is heated up by the engine makes it efficient - that makes more of the fuel used for moving the car forward...

The car design itself does much to engine performance. Large intakes makes bigger radiators, the engine can be tuned for more performance - but then generally looses in drag, as air must pass cooling systems instead of following streamlines.

It's much about heat!

The best NA engine I know of, in terms of performance per displacement, is 870 hp/litre @ 40.000 rpm(!)

larger intakes may help cool an engine more but so would building a more efficient radiator which is part of the engine. also one would not want an engine to run too cool. i know if im running too cool my vtec wont engage regardless of oil temp. this is a definite tangent though. the radiator is part of the engine.

why wont it work? im pretty sure a 6.0l engine will consume much more gas than a 1.6l. i know what i am suggesting is pretty theoretical but it would be the best way of rating an engines efficiency, right?

wouldnt brake mean effective pressure favor engines with a very peaky torque curve? area under the curve i think is still the best method of determining power output. when your tuning for racing your looking to make the most power that will be used by the transmission. but we wont go into that.

Area under the curve has little to do with efficiency it tells how much work the engine can do from spinning at A rpms to B rpms. This corresponds to how much energy is released when moving the car from C MPH to D MPH which will determine how long it takes to do so. Its more of a pure performance figure.

BMEP accounts for the peaky motors by dividing by the rpm so if you need too many rpms to get your power then your BMEP is "penalised" so to speak.

Thermal Efficiency is important but do we want it at WOT or part throttle etc and its harder for us to determine by looking at a few different specs published in magazines or websites, becasue fuel economy figures aren't based on WOT tests unless you have access to inhouse test data. WOT efficiency is probably more important to racing guys who actually use WOT often.

ok wait, i need to understand this because i didnt at first glance. what is swept volume?

im not really understanding how the bmep accounts for a peaky torque curve. if two motors both have a peak torque of say 250 ft/lbs and both rev to 9000rpm but one has a large spike from 6500-7500 while the other holds near 250 the entire way across, how does the formula let you know that the car with 250 straight across is the better choice?

Say WOT?

Boy, this thread really gets deep, it's not just about the best engine, it's about the definition of " efficient ". Kind of reminds me of Bill Clinton pondering what the definition of "is" - is. :lol:

What kind of engine are we talking here, 9,000 rpm redline with 250 lb.ft.? About the peaky or linear, I would say that the engine with linear power straight across would provide the most efficient power delivery - both engine's being equal in every other way. After all, isn't that what everyone strives for - smooth, predictable power?

If we really wanted to go far, we could begin talking about how long it takes for each engine to reach it's mot efficient operating tempeture. The sooner the better.

ok wait, i need to understand this because i didnt at first glance. what is swept volume?

im not really understanding how the bmep accounts for a peaky torque curve. if two motors both have a peak torque of say 250 ft/lbs and both rev to 9000rpm but one has a large spike from 6500-7500 while the other holds near 250 the entire way across, how does the formula let you know that the car with 250 straight across is the better choice?

swept volume is the same as engine displacement.

BMEP doesn't account for torque curve it accounts for instantaneous values of torque power and rpm, but say at the power peak rpm. If you require 9000rpm to make 300hp or 12000 for 300hp the 9000rpm has the higher BMEP because the engine needs less revs to provide the same power (provideed engine size is the same). Its not an efficiency, but i suppose you can call it an "effectiveness". the engine that produces 300hp@9000 is more "effective" than the one that requires 12000rpm for the same displacement. But you are right you want a flat torque curve to give you constant acceleration and BMEP doesn't immediately show this.

Engines are created to have certain characteristics so we should always be careful that we don't say engine A is better thnan engine B because of such and such when the manufacturer may have a different goal than another.

Archiviert

Dieses Thema ist archiviert und für weitere Antworten gesperrt. Erstelle doch dein eigenes Thema im passenden Forum.



×
×
  • Neu erstellen...