Engines You Wished Were Created?

747400sp · Sat Dec 26, 2015 10:23 pm

Good Afternoon Everyone

I was wondering, was there an engine, that you wished was created? For me, there was a V10 version of the Corvette V8, that was supposed to be built for a Cadillac halo car, which was to compete Maybach and Rolls Royce in the mid 2000's, the engine and car, never happened.

Here are some dream engines that I came up with.

Detroit Diesel Series 80, the Series 60 and 50 sounds great, so a V8 version, would be amazing.

A V10 version of the Ford Power Stork.

A V 20 for a sport car.

A quad rotor, for a sport car.

diverted · Sat Dec 26, 2015 10:29 pm

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
A quad rotor, for a sport car.

The Quad rotor does exist! It's just something that was hard to get your hands on unless you raced the 787B. Though, the aftermarket has made it a reality. Rare, and expensive, but possible!

That photo is Mad Mike's 4 rotor FD RX-7. He has a Mx-5 with a 4 rotor now.

They sound epic!

BMI727 · Sat Dec 26, 2015 10:41 pm

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
A V 20 for a sport car.

Why?

You seem to misunderstand the point of the engine. You want as much power as possible out of the smallest engine you can use and then build around that to get the most power out of the smallest overall package. Other than creating power, the engine is just a big ass chunk of metal that causes problems by being heavy and having specific packaging cooling needs.

I love the Dodge Viper but they get 640 horsepower out of an 8.4L V10 for about 76hp per liter. Cool engine, but it kind of sucks from an engineering standpoint when you consider that Dodge themselves get 707hp from a supercharged 6.2L V8 in the Hellcat (Too tall for the Viper, back to the packaging issue). The turbocharged Alfa 4C gets 135 ponies per liter out of it's 1.8 liter engine (Said to be too tall for the new Miata based Fiat 124). My own thirteen year old car gets 118 horsepower per liter from its normally aspirated powerplant.

The bottom line is that even the fantasy of more cylinders (more internal losses) and more displacement is not great. The reality would be even worse.

DocLightning · Sun Dec 27, 2015 5:03 am

#AmIdoingthisright

tommy1808 · Sun Dec 27, 2015 6:59 am

A 2.1L V8 Bi-Turbo for an VW Polo 86C. Won't be strong, maybe around 100KW, but the understatement. ...

Well, I have 2 1.05L R4 engines waiting for my retirement. ...

Best regards
Thomas

WIederling · Sun Dec 27, 2015 2:11 pm

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
A quad rotor, for a sport car.

Mercedes Benz C111 engine second iteration ( first was a3 rotor engine )
Mazda also did some 4 rotor engine

afterburner · Sun Dec 27, 2015 2:42 pm

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
A V 20 for a sport car.

Tell me if I'm wrong but I have this impression that many Americans think that to get more power we need to increase the number of cylinders and engine displacement. On the other hand, European and Japanese car manufacturers have been creating cars that have similar power as their predecessors with smaller engines (thus more fuel efficient) or more power with similar size engines.

Redd · Sun Dec 27, 2015 2:54 pm

I've always wanted to see like a 4-5 Litre 2-stroke V8 in a car.

So after seeing this topic I decided to google it and what do ya know

Just goes to prove the Scandinavians are better at being ridiculously American than Americans when it comes to cars. :P

http://www.topgear.com/car-news/moto...v8-drag-car-wants-destroy-eardrums

[Edited 2015-12-27 06:54:59]

NSMike · Sun Dec 27, 2015 4:16 pm

This of course...

luckyone · Sun Dec 27, 2015 4:27 pm

Quoting afterburner (Reply 6):

American carmakers have been downsizing as well. If anything, with their (misnamed) EcoBoost engines, Ford has been downsiIng at a faster clip the last few years than Honda and Toyota, who are only just now offering small displacement, turbocharged engines in their mainstream cars. Chevrolet's new Malibu only offers four cylinder engines. European and Japanese manufacturers are happy to sell you large displacement engines as well (Toyota/Lexus and the German big 3 all make at least a V8 and several 12-cylinder engines), but local tax structures make them expensive in their home markets.

Kiwirob · Sun Dec 27, 2015 4:32 pm

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
A quad rotor, for a sport car.

Quoting diverted (Reply 1):
The Quad rotor does exist! It's just something that was hard to get your hands on unless you raced the 787B. Though, the aftermarket has made it a reality. Rare, and expensive, but possible!

Why limit yourself to 4 when you can have 6?

Siren · Sun Dec 27, 2015 9:30 pm

An engine I pined away for, and never got, was a supercharged version of the Mercedes M156, the AMG 6.2 liter that was first introduced in 2007... Mercedes has since withdrawn the engine and started going to smaller displacement turbocharged engines in their AMG platform cars for efficiency and environmental reasons. But, a supercharged CLS63 AMG? Oh man, that would've been a monster. Even more than the Supercharged M113 that the naturally aspirated M156 replaced....

afterburner · Mon Dec 28, 2015 3:11 am

Quoting luckyone (Reply 9):
with their (misnamed) EcoBoost engines, Ford has been downsiIng at a faster clip the last few years than Honda and Toyota,

Even though Ford is an American brand, I know that some of their cars such as Sierra, Escort, Mondeo, Focus, and Fiesta are not typical American cars. They are European. And the EcoBoost engines are for this "European" Ford cars.

solarflyer22 · Mon Dec 28, 2015 4:45 am

If you are speaking just of car engines. I like 3.0 L V-6s or inline 6s. I was really sad to see BMW and Audi switch their entry level sedans to 2 - 2.2 Liter 4 cyclinder engines. Alas, the fuel economy and the turbo charger changed things.

I do like the concept of Supercharged engines. This is different from Turbo charged and is what the US used in WWII fighter planes. It gives a steady stream of boosted power.

MrChips · Mon Dec 28, 2015 7:07 am

Engine-related concepts that I wish for:

-That before fuel economy and emissions regulations made them largely obsolete, that more manufacturers didn't consider building high-revving, high-horsepower naturally-aspirated engines for performance trims of their cars, in the same vein as the early to mid 2000s BMW M products, the 911 GT3 and others;

-That more manufacturers, apart from bloody VW (and now Volvo) got onboard with the compounded forced induction concept, where a supercharger is used for low RPM and instantaneous response, and a turbocharger kicks in for high RPM and higher boost;

-That the board of directors at BMW briefly lose their minds collectively in the mid-1990s and approve Project Goldfish for production (for those that don't know, Project Goldfish was the internal codename in BMW concerning the development of a V16 engine to be fitted into the E32 7-Series) and

-That Alfa Romeo didn't abandon the Busso V6 so quickly.

[Edited 2015-12-27 23:08:45]

WIederling · Mon Dec 28, 2015 10:42 am

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 13):
This is different from Turbo charged and is what the US used in WWII fighter planes. It gives a steady stream of boosted power.

Doesn't do much for efficiency. Primary objective was getting around atmospheric pressure loss.

I'd go for a turbocharged hybrid. Use the Electric for instant available power. ( What they introduced in Formula 1 racing )
http://de.slideshare.net/AkshathRock...y-recovery-system-ers-in-formula-1

Stealthz · Mon Dec 28, 2015 12:22 pm

The Honda S2000 sports car was originally intended to have a sweet little 2l 32v V8 but even Honda Motor company have accountants and as anywhere else they often win over the engineers!

Aesma · Mon Dec 28, 2015 2:59 pm

An F1 engine adapted for the road. For example a 2.4 V8, running at 14000rpm reliably instead of the close to 20000rpm it could do in F1. Should get something like 500hp, then put it in a small and light car, like a Lotus Exige or an Ariel Atom.

In fact the atom has had a small 500hp V8 but it doesn't seem to have ever entered production.

Moose135 · Mon Dec 28, 2015 3:04 pm

Quoting afterburner (Reply 6):
Tell me if I'm wrong but I have this impression that many Americans think that to get more power we need to increase the number of cylinders and engine displacement.

As the man said - there's no replacement for displacement!

WIederling · Tue Dec 29, 2015 10:59 am

Quoting Moose135 (Reply 18):
As the man said - there's no replacement for displacement!

And fed via twin large ladles

TSS · Thu Dec 31, 2015 9:46 am

Quoting Moose135 (Reply 18):
Quoting afterburner (Reply 6):
Tell me if I'm wrong but I have this impression that many Americans think that to get more power we need to increase the number of cylinders and engine displacement.

As the man said - there's no replacement for displacement!

The thing is, we Americans tend to like gobs of torque at low revs, whereas our European friends tend to prefer lots of horsepower at high revs. To get the former, more displacement is a necessity, and with larger displacement more cylinders are needed to maintain smoothness of operation.

It's worth noting that horsepower is merely torque x rpms divided by 5250.

mad99 · Thu Dec 31, 2015 10:05 am

Quoting diverted (Reply 1):
They sound epic!

I haven't heard a 4 rotor but i have heard non-silenced two rotor and epic does not come to mind. Earplugs come to mind.

Kiwirob · Thu Dec 31, 2015 5:39 pm

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 13):
I do like the concept of Supercharged engines. This is different from Turbo charged and is what the US used in WWII fighter planes. It gives a steady stream of boosted power.

Superchargers work well at low revs but cost a lot of power at high revs, Lancia got around this with the Delta S4 Group B car, it had a supercharger and a turbocharger, the supercharger disengaged at high revs and the turbo took over. Over 600hp from a 1.8 litre engine.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 17):

In fact the atom has had a small 500hp V8 but it doesn't seem to have ever entered production.

It did enter production, it was limited to 25 units.

afterburner · Fri Jan 01, 2016 8:49 am

Quoting TSS (Reply 20):
we Americans tend to like gobs of torque at low revs

Diesel engines provide higher torque at lower rpm than gasoline ones. Then why aren't diesel engines in the US as popular as in the Europe?

BMI727 · Fri Jan 01, 2016 9:27 am

Quoting Siren (Reply 11):
ercedes has since withdrawn the engine and started going to smaller displacement turbocharged engines in their AMG platform cars for efficiency and environmental reasons.

I'd start by making them go back to naming the cars to reflect the displacement. It's ridiculous that the "63" cars all have 4 liter engines.

Same for BMW and all other carmakers playing these games.

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 13):
I do like the concept of Supercharged engines. This is different from Turbo charged and is what the US used in WWII fighter planes. It gives a steady stream of boosted power.

Superchargers will generally be inferior to turbochargers since superchargers are more parasitic while turbos use what is essentially waste energy. New technologies should be able to make turbo lag all but eliminated going forward.

Quoting stealthz (Reply 16):
The Honda S2000 sports car was originally intended to have a sweet little 2l 32v V8 but even Honda Motor company have accountants and as anywhere else they often win over the engineers!

I have a hard time finding fault with the four cylinder they ended up with.

Quoting afterburner (Reply 23):
Then why aren't diesel engines in the US as popular as in the Europe?

There's a lot of reasons but here are a few:
1. Taxes on diesel fuel are higher in misguided attempt to make trucks pay for the damage they incur to roads which eats up some of the efficiency gain.
2. Diesel fuel was not easy to find in some areas until relatively recently. Even now it is commonly, but not universally, offered at American gas stations.
3. Old diesel engines (1970s-1980s) really were anemic, even compared to gas engines choked by emissions controls. Diesel engines with passable performance didn't really show up until turbodiesels became common.
4. US emissions regulations are written to be disadvantageous to diesels. This has less to do with the environment than backdoor protectionism since American manufacturers didn't have much to offer.
5. GM tried selling an Oldsmobile diesel in some of its cars during the late 70s into the mid 80s. They were awful and soured many people's opinions of diesel in general. This perception was false - the failure was on GM, not diesel engines as a whole. This was one of several things GM tried during that general era that would eventually catch on with the industry but didn't do GM a bit of good due to their piss poor execution.

Dreadnought · Fri Jan 01, 2016 5:13 pm

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 2):
I love the Dodge Viper but they get 640 horsepower out of an 8.4L V10 for about 76hp per liter. Cool engine, but it kind of sucks from an engineering standpoint when you consider that Dodge themselves get 707hp from a supercharged 6.2L V8 in the Hellcat (Too tall for the Viper, back to the packaging issue). The turbocharged Alfa 4C gets 135 ponies per liter out of it's 1.8 liter engine (Said to be too tall for the new Miata based Fiat 124). My own thirteen year old car gets 118 horsepower per liter from its normally aspirated powerplant.

There is a direct relation between engine durability and its specific power output (hp per liter), all other things being equal. In America, we tend to drive longer distances and rack up more miles than Europeans. We think nothing of of an engine with 200,000 miles on it. An engine that produces more than 100 hp per liter will have a hard time reaching 200K miles, whereas an understressed small-block V-8 would have no problem.

And don't forget, you can easily take that small-block, change cams, pistons, manifolds and double the power output. The reason the manufacturers don't do that from the factory is that they don't want to sell a car that need an engine rebuild after less than 100K miles.

zckls04 · Sat Jan 02, 2016 4:42 am

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 25):
There is a direct relation between engine durability and its specific power output (hp per liter), all other things being equal. In America, we tend to drive longer distances and rack up more miles than Europeans. We think nothing of of an engine with 200,000 miles on it. An engine that produces more than 100 hp per liter will have a hard time reaching 200K miles, whereas an understressed small-block V-8 would have no problem.

I've always said the greatest joy of a V8 is not how it feels when you have your foot down, but how it feels when you're pootling around at low speeds. I always loved the lazy whirr of my Mustang; it was so relaxing.

Stealthz · Sat Jan 02, 2016 9:01 am

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 24):
I have a hard time finding fault with the four cylinder they ended up with.

Absolutely, I agree, just pointing out what the original concept was and what might have been.

BMI727 · Sat Jan 02, 2016 9:56 am

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 25):
There is a direct relation between engine durability and its specific power output (hp per liter), all other things being equal.

The things is that all other things usually aren't equal. If you have to drop power (compression) that much to achieve sufficient durability it means you have yourself a shitty engine.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 25):
And don't forget, you can easily take that small-block, change cams, pistons, manifolds and double the power output.

Well yeah. If you take an engine and replace basically all the parts with better parts (including the block if you want) you'll be able to get more power.

American V8s are hardly alone in this as there are plenty of other engines (The Toyota JZ and aforementioned Honda F20C come to mind) that people can get significant power increases out of with, as far as I know, solid reliability and obscene power with some durability hit.

Revelation · Sat Jan 02, 2016 4:32 pm

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 13):
If you are speaking just of car engines. I like 3.0 L V-6s or inline 6s. I was really sad to see BMW and Audi switch their entry level sedans to 2 - 2.2 Liter 4 cyclinder engines. Alas, the fuel economy and the turbo charger changed things.

I agree!

Last time I checked, the only car in that class with a naturally aspirated 6 was the Infiniti G Series. Hopefully I won't be car shopping soon but when I do I will certainly look into it further.

waterpolodan · Fri Jan 08, 2016 2:27 pm

This-

http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-cult...-climax-flat-16-grand-prix-engine/

Also, I wish a manufacturer had attempted to create a 16-cylinder engine for the 3.5L era of F1 between '89 and '95. There were a lot of interesting engines at the beginning of that era like the flat 12 "Subaru", the Lamborghini V12, the Life W12, the Porsche V12, ect. Most of them were failures but I still wish a team had developed and produced a 16 cylinder engine during that era so we could hear it.

If any of you guys are remotely interested in F1 history, you've probably already heard clips of the V16 and H16 BRM engines from the 50s and 60s. They were absolutely fantastic, probably some of the loveliest sounds to ever emanate from a race car, and they were revving far lower than what a more modern design would be capable of. I can only imagine what 16 cylinders would sound like in an era when the revs were starting to climb above 14,000.

Besides that, I also wish the FIA hadn't restricted teams to 10 cylinder engines in '99 or '00. I believe both Honda and Toyota had 3L V12 engines under development back then that could have reached 19,000 rpm. I'd love to have seen those in the flesh.

Kiwirob · Fri Jan 08, 2016 4:13 pm

Quoting stealthz (Reply 16):
The Honda S2000 sports car was originally intended to have a sweet little 2l 32v V8 but even Honda Motor company have accountants and as anywhere else they often win over the engineers!

Unless you can back this up with a reference I call bs . Honda didn't put a v8 into the NSX, they've never build a v8 engined production car, so I very much doubt they ever had plans to build a 2,0 V8 specifically for the S2000.

@BMI you could always put the Viper V10 in your S2000, it's been done already.