The way aluminium fails catastrophically without warning is the reason planes have limited flying hours. When they are used up there is no way to guarantee their airworthiness, a wing could fall off at any time during normal operation.
I think with cf the problem is water ingress through even the tiniest scratch rather than the limited amount of flexing with aluminium and possible voids during manufacture.
I think with cf the problem is water ingress through even the tiniest scratch rather than the limited amount of flexing with aluminium and possible voids during manufacture.
Frankly, its not news that such engines exist, we know that, and Ford US knows that! but this one is pretty cool one, that's worth celebrating.. and available from Ford at a very reasonable price, and is a V8 with everything done right for performance, and drivability, which as you mention are more rare. A 4 cylinder, no matter how configured would indeed be ho hum.
It has the bosses already in the block casting for mounting the supercharger, but I think I'd prefer the 440hp natural aspiration one. Certainly there will be a Shelby supercharged version and going from 440 to 550 should be easy with that! Also I don't think it has individual fuel injection to each cylinder yet, but again there are mounting points cast in for just that, so 440hp isn't the end of the line for the natural aspiration version.
And the V-8 as a latecomer dominant big engine concept in Europe- well V-8's are no news to us here! You guys were just behind!
My old TR-3 Triumph was fun to drive because at low speeds it felt like high speeds due to it being primitive in almost all ways!
Might have saved my life in a perverse way..
It has the bosses already in the block casting for mounting the supercharger, but I think I'd prefer the 440hp natural aspiration one. Certainly there will be a Shelby supercharged version and going from 440 to 550 should be easy with that! Also I don't think it has individual fuel injection to each cylinder yet, but again there are mounting points cast in for just that, so 440hp isn't the end of the line for the natural aspiration version.
And the V-8 as a latecomer dominant big engine concept in Europe- well V-8's are no news to us here! You guys were just behind!
My old TR-3 Triumph was fun to drive because at low speeds it felt like high speeds due to it being primitive in almost all ways!
Might have saved my life in a perverse way..
Last edited:
I enjoyed this one from 2005 to 2012, until I traded it in for smaller car to drive every day to San Francisco,
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
I very much prefer straight sixes to V8s.
One of the reasons being that straight sixes are inherently balanced and run very smooth, the only thing smoother is a V12.
Sadly they are getting rare as most manufacturers use either V6 (a nightmare, without various balancing shafts they would shake themselves to pieces) or V8 because of their shorter blocks.
Also the regulations of the german touring car championship stipulates 4.2L V8 engines.
It would be a complete waste of money to design a high-performance V8 for racing and a completely different one for the M5. The V10 was designed when F1 used 3L V10s but they have gone to 2.4L V8 too so there is no marketing advantage to having a V10 road car.
Mind you there is still Audis stonking 6L V12 TDi which is based on their multiple Le Mans winning 5.5L V12 TDi race engine. Since '06 no petrol engined car has won there.
One of the reasons being that straight sixes are inherently balanced and run very smooth, the only thing smoother is a V12.
Sadly they are getting rare as most manufacturers use either V6 (a nightmare, without various balancing shafts they would shake themselves to pieces) or V8 because of their shorter blocks.
Also the regulations of the german touring car championship stipulates 4.2L V8 engines.
It would be a complete waste of money to design a high-performance V8 for racing and a completely different one for the M5. The V10 was designed when F1 used 3L V10s but they have gone to 2.4L V8 too so there is no marketing advantage to having a V10 road car.
Mind you there is still Audis stonking 6L V12 TDi which is based on their multiple Le Mans winning 5.5L V12 TDi race engine. Since '06 no petrol engined car has won there.
The inline 6 is just too heavy. An old mechanic friend used to say the V6 was invented by the patent holder for the engine hoist. Lancia actually. With the magic of balance shafts, we have narrow angle 6's, 5's and who knows what unbalanced monster. But they work. None are as elegant as the XK or Alpha 1.8 were. Just plain art. A V12 is not necessary any smother. It depends on how it is built. There is a stronger argument for a flat 12 to counter the crank whip an I6 gets.
I got only a few years on you, and yes, the same criteria. Thanks to advances in technology, my GTI is quicker, faster, more precise, better poised, and gives better feedback than any of the "sports" cars I have owned. I can drive it quickly if I choose, sedately if not. The only car that could do this better was a second generation M3. Big square 4-door sedan. If you drove it like a luxury car, it behaved as such. If you got on it, it was a monster that could tax anyone's skill. Too bad they trashed the 3's. In both cases, those who boo-hoo their capabilities I suggest have not actually driven the cars, or do not know how to drive. I am sure there are many other examples I am not familiar with. To put things into context, A Caravan can/has beat an XKE around Limerock. I am sure the Jag feels better doing it, but technology is what it is.
The larger gate resistors, and further changes to the compensation finally got the DH-120 dead on solid. Then a clip fell off setting the bias and I blew it up again. Poor old circuit card. The VAS CCS sure is fragile.
I heart my friend's feelings when I said that his Bimmer M3 feels almost like my Nissan Armada. He even did not consider to try my Armada and compare.
However, that flying behemoth ate too much, 13-15 miles per gallon... Now I drive Nissan Sentra SE, 2 liters only, 30-32 miles per gallon. And Honda Civic Hybrid that is less predictable, heavier to drive, and drives 37-39 miles per gallon.
However, that flying behemoth ate too much, 13-15 miles per gallon... Now I drive Nissan Sentra SE, 2 liters only, 30-32 miles per gallon. And Honda Civic Hybrid that is less predictable, heavier to drive, and drives 37-39 miles per gallon.
I don't know of any other way to express engine efficiency. Perhaps you can point out another method.
Of course, just sticking an engine into a car will not maintain that power, because of inevitable losses on the trasmission system and the the gearbox. It not unusual for these losses to be in the -12...15% region. Every now and then, along comes somebody who claims 200 bhp and and say 300 nM of torque, and rolling road measurements show he has actually 1 to 3% more than stated, but that is rather rare.
My own little fun car is a good example. The engine delivers 142 bhp on the test table, but on the wheel, the measured value is 126 bhp, i.e. a loss of some 13%. My Deawoo is rated at 133 bhp, but on the wheels, it delivers 117 bhp, a loss of also 13%.
For a comprehensive list of such tests, see Welcome to Rototest Research Institute . Some very interesting results, see BMW lose 58 bhp in the transmission process, and observe FIAT beat its own spec.
Of course torque has much to do with it all. Diesels are driven on torque more than on bhp, given their naturally large compression ratios, further boosted by turbochargers, their torque figures are impressive. Unfortunately, the effective span of that torques is as narrow as their effective power bandwidth, they generally do their best in the 2,000-4,000 rpm span. By comparison, VW's 2 litre FSI turbo engine delivers 211 bhp and 320 nM torque at just 5,100 rmp, but it maintains both very well indeed over a span of 2,000-6,000 rpm - DOUBLE the bandwidth of a diesel.
But ultimately, it all boils down to the power to weight ratio. The less kilos each horsepower must move, the better the performance. There are no two ways about it. Top speed though is effected by aerodynamics of the bodywork as well; it has long been recognized that above 100 km/h (62 mph), progressively more and more power is being used to overcome air resistence. The omnious Cx factor. Which is, surprisingly enough, much better for a Yugo than one would expect, mostly due to its small front surface area.
As for modern lightweight materials, they are just that, materials. Carbon fibre is very fashonable at the moment, but I don't trust it, I'll take a standard sheet metal car over it any day.
And the logic of lightweight bodywork fitted with a reasonably powerful engine is a lesson we have had since the early 60ies. France's Alpine had a very successful Renault mechanics based rally coupe, weighing in at just 620 kilos (app. 1,350 lbs), powered by a 1.6 litre engine delivering 150 bhp. Then of course, the unavoidable Colin Chapman and his Lotus, from model 7 onwards - that was always Lotus' philosophy and approach. Not to vene mention such models from Reliant and many other UK small car makers, and from East Germany, the immortal Trabant, a.k.a. Trabi. It may be funny, but that little car sure made a lot of people VERY happy.
About the FIAT engine, I don't know, I haven't driven one, and so far, I haven't come across any test of it, since it's a relatively new engine. But, Italians always had the most expensive fuel in the EU and always made cars which use up a lot of it. That is changing only now, about two decades after the Germans. Anyway, its consumption will also depend on the model of car and its weight, so there is no clear cut answer.
You like diesel, I don't. But I'll look up some figures for you tomorrow, it's late over here just now.
Last edited:
My take on that: The only limited resource in this world is your time on this Earth. If you choose to spend it crammed in a tiny car, slowly dragging your body from point A to B just to claim "good gas milage" it's... sad.
At lest in a V6-V8 that eats 15mpg you feel that your are alive.
1974, V4. It was painted BRG with gold pinstripe. My real excitement in it was coming down I-70 and realized I had not locked the freewheel. By putting up the headlights and rolling down the windows, I kept it under 80 all the way down until the breaks worked again. I left it locked after that and did not worry about no clutch shifting!
I used to leave class in Golden at exactly the same time as a 914. I could take him on the hill, but he would blow by me as soon as he got going. That old railroad refrig motor had wonderful torque. I never went much above 65 intentionally as the transmission wine was louder than the exhaust. It held together though.
I don't think it is absolutely necessary to feel how brain sticks to the rear wall of the head in order to know you are alive. However, at the beginning it was fun. I had to re-learn how to start the car pushing gas pedal gently, otherwise it naturally jumped up.
I once went to Long Beach during the night, I had to be there before 8 am. I was driving in a company of few cars, and they were going around 100 mpH. At 7 am I went on gas station, and as soon as come back on freeway driving alone a police car made u-turn on an empty freeway and stopped me. My speed was 78 mpH only, I did not have time to gain more, but police officer said that it was 100. He gave me ticket for "about 90 mpH in 70 mpH zone". I paid and took driving school. I was guilty actually, but before the cop got me. When he got me my speed was 8 mpH only above speed limit.
The numbers contradicts your sayings..
Besides , european carmakers have the best diesel engines
because this fuel is the most used in this part of the world
and that subsequently most of the research effort has been
made in this area with petrol engines relegated as second
rate market and as such , minimal improvements were
made theses past years.
This comparison chart for diesel and petrol engine cars
show clearly that once you have accounted for the higher
density of diesel comsumption is the same...
http://fiches-auto.fr/articles-auto/consommation/s-439-citadines-qui-consomment-le-moins.php
Around Boulder, mile high so at least 20% down on power. Pretty much flat out. I won't go into details, but let's say I know about how fast most of my cars would go.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.