|
Post by silverdragon on Jun 20, 2014 8:08:33 GMT
There is no replacement for displacement.
Can this be put to the test... And What test?....
I look at the Veyron, 1,000 hp.(Plus if you count "Sports") It has Quad turbo chargers.. Why didnt they go for a bigger engine in the first place....
I reason out the space requirements?...
But are there other factors?.. (I know there are) Is this a lb-per-hp equation. Weight issues, and for every extra hp you need extra weight which negates the hp required to pull that weight, then interferers with aerodynamics because of the extra space requirements etc.
at over 267 mph, fastest standard production road legal car in the world (At time of writing) no one can negate the abilities of that vehicle. But can it be beaten with a normally aspirated engine?...
This is just the starting arguments, I expect this may take some time, as I am questioning the unwritten rules of engines.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jun 20, 2014 8:09:52 GMT
Interesting fact, Engine issues at Bugatti. They burnt down the original engine test shed. The heat from the exhaust was a lot more than they bargained for?....
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 20, 2014 9:21:46 GMT
There is no replacement for displacement. Can this be put to the test... And What test?.... I look at the Veyron, 1,000 hp.(Plus if you count "Sports") It has Quad turbo chargers.. Why didnt they go for a bigger engine in the first place.... I reason out the space requirements?... But are there other factors?.. (I know there are) Is this a lb-per-hp equation. Weight issues, and for every extra hp you need extra weight which negates the hp required to pull that weight, then interferers with aerodynamics because of the extra space requirements etc. at over 267 mph, fastest standard production road legal car in the world (At time of writing) no one can negate the abilities of that vehicle. But can it be beaten with a normally aspirated engine?... This is just the starting arguments, I expect this may take some time, as I am questioning the unwritten rules of engines. its not about normally aspirated being able to be faster - its about there being limits to how much you can supercharge an engine. It was true back when superchargers were in their infancy, and it is still true today. the way I prefer to put it; anything you can do to a 4 cylinder; you can do to a V-8, twice.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 20, 2014 9:39:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jun 21, 2014 7:25:52 GMT
You bloody Yanks and you V8's..... Over here, the V6 is a better balanced engine, ...and what you can do to a V8, we can do to a W12..... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W12_engine
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 21, 2014 10:34:29 GMT
You bloody Yanks and you V8's..... Over here, the V6 is a better balanced engine, ...and what you can do to a V8, we can do to a W12..... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W12_engineyou mean the ones with 1465 CID? or do you mean the FI model which never worked long enough to get through prequalifying? Lincoln used to put a V-12 in their Town Cars, back when a Town Car was a thing. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_L-head_V12_enginethis "flathead" series runs incredibly smooth, for being an old low compression design. (the parade engine has a flathead 8) but we have to consider the difference between your V-8 and out V-8. I remember the Land Rover Defender release writeup. "with its big 4 liter V-8" the smallest V-8 you could get in the US at the time was a 5 liter, and most people considered it a little undersized. our go-to V-8 is 5.7L - commonly referred to as the "small block"
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jun 22, 2014 10:52:03 GMT
5.7 litre is huge. But then again, your cars are far from small. There is an argument that your cars are heavier slower and chew more gallons per mile than the equivalent european car. The land-rover 4 litre is a huge engine, and it can literally tow a house down, it actually doesnt need anything bigger. So we cant see the fascination in 5 litre 6 litre unless you actually do have money to burn?... And the vehicle weight issues, if you compare your small block and the vehicle they are mostly put into, the Landy develops more horses per ton.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 22, 2014 14:16:30 GMT
5.7 litre is huge. But then again, your cars are far from small. There is an argument that your cars are heavier slower and chew more gallons per mile than the equivalent european car. The land-rover 4 litre is a huge engine, and it can literally tow a house down, it actually doesnt need anything bigger. So we cant see the fascination in 5 litre 6 litre unless you actually do have money to burn?... And the vehicle weight issues, if you compare your small block and the vehicle they are mostly put into, the Landy develops more horses per ton. well, we are starting to learn that you don't NEED to pack an entire ironworks to the shops with you. but it will be a slow process. as for slower - runor has it that my father got a ticket for 120 MPH on the freeway when he was younger. when I was living in Los Angeles, I was driving my van (transit) and I had several times I ran the (scaled to 99 MPH) speedometer out of numbers. the other side of it is, the average caravan in the US is in the 30 foot class, and mine was an "ultralight" - weighed only 2½ tons. (similar construction design to your standard caravans) my brother's has a GVWR of 5 tons, but also sleeps a family of 5 without having to disassemble the dining table. we also tend to not wind our engines up as tightly as yours. it loses us efficiency at low speed, but it gains us lifespan. - it also has the result that I could throw my tow chain on your works volvo and pull it, and the trailer, if it was needed - though obviously not a good thing to make a practice of.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jun 23, 2014 2:33:27 GMT
In regards US and European cars;
In Europe many roads, especially in towns and cities, are narrower and usually are far from straight for more than a mile or two. This is because a lot of European roads have existed for millennia, and were originally laid down with carts in mind and avoiding ground that was hard to build surfaces on. In the US roads tend to be straighter and wider, even in cities where they use a grid system - rather than the European habit of building houses in a more circular pattern around a central settlement. Because of this American cars could be larger and heavier, as in most places chances were that you wouldn't need to do much in the way of maneuvering and they had more physical space to park cars. In Europe smaller lighter cars were more practical, as they could use the small narrow twisting roads far more easily.
As far as engine size and efficiency goes, the US has traditionally had much lower fuel prices than in Europe. So large fuel hungry engines were not a major issue - while in, say, the UK such vehicles would simply be too expensive to run for most people (certainly in the post war period).
Trivia; The Bf 109E was upgraded to the 109G version by simply taking the engine and increasing the bore size.
The problem with testing this is how to go about it. The only way you'd get practical and viable information would be to test the performance of a car, and then increase its displacement by modifying the engine and testing it again. This would be complex, time consuming and probably not all that interesting as far as TV goes.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jun 23, 2014 6:59:27 GMT
I have had Transits over 100 mph... All be that on a downhill with following wind. My first Mini could exceed 100 mph easily. We modified a mini with just under two litres, managed about 150 on motorway without really trying... Scared the crud out of us, we didnt do that again. No steering dampers in those days, we had the feeling if we twitched slightly too much we would be part of the scenery so fast it would be without passing through the "Oh crap" stage?....
We finally managed to get some fix in and track tested it at 155 mph.
I have had a small bike engined car run out of numbers on a 180mph clock.. on a track of course....
I now do not ever exceed on track 130 mph. I dont drive that fast ever on surface roads, I barely touch 90 even on empty motorway. I cant think that fast.... For that reason, I only ever race "Historic" vehicles that could never do those kinds of speeds in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 23, 2014 13:38:07 GMT
I have had Transits over 100 mph... All be that on a downhill with following wind. My first Mini could exceed 100 mph easily. We modified a mini with just under two litres, managed about 150 on motorway without really trying... Scared the crud out of us, we didnt do that again. No steering dampers in those days, we had the feeling if we twitched slightly too much we would be part of the scenery so fast it would be without passing through the "Oh crap" stage?.... We finally managed to get some fix in and track tested it at 155 mph. I have had a small bike engined car run out of numbers on a 180mph clock.. on a track of course.... I now do not ever exceed on track 130 mph. I dont drive that fast ever on surface roads, I barely touch 90 even on empty motorway. I cant think that fast.... For that reason, I only ever race "Historic" vehicles that could never do those kinds of speeds in the first place. in the early 70s in the US, they established that driving faster than 55 MPH violated several of the laws of the universe; so they made a rule that all states must have a 55 MPH speed limit or there would be no federal highway funds given. as a result, there was a whole generation of cars built that topped out around 80. my Jeep has a chassis rating of 75 MPH. when that arbitrary rule fell in the late 80s, cars started going faster, again, and my truck has shown itself fully capable of driving with the cruise control set at 79.5 (the only way to manage Montana, which is best described as miles and miles of miles and miles - the state is about a thousand miles across, and they consider anything within a hundred miles to be close by.)
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Jun 23, 2014 14:18:51 GMT
(the only way to manage Montana, which is best described as miles and miles of miles and miles - the state is about a thousand miles across, and they consider anything within a hundred miles to be close by.) Texas is similar. If you're in a metroplex area, then you can easily go between towns - or even entire counties - and not realize it unless you're paying attention to the signage. If you're outside of a metroplex area, then here's hoping you have yourself a reliable vehicle, as it can be dozens of miles between signs of life.
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Jun 23, 2014 14:22:51 GMT
In regards US and European cars; In Europe many roads, especially in towns and cities, are narrower and usually are far from straight for more than a mile or two. This is because a lot of European roads have existed for millennia, and were originally laid down with carts in mind and avoiding ground that was hard to build surfaces on. In the US roads tend to be straighter and wider, even in cities where they use a grid system - rather than the European habit of building houses in a more circular pattern around a central settlement. Because of this American cars could be larger and heavier, as in most places chances were that you wouldn't need to do much in the way of maneuvering and they had more physical space to park cars. In Europe smaller lighter cars were more practical, as they could use the small narrow twisting roads far more easily. In the more rural parts of Texas, you'll see European-style roads in various places. This is due to a variety of factors, such as the ever-present hills in much of the state and the need to go around various land claims (such as what the US government owns). I've got one such road on my newspaper delivery route, and I literally go out of my way to avoid driving a particular stretch of it. That stretch represents a steep grade, a blind curve (due to the trees), and a deer crossing area; if you're not driving an SUV or a similarly heavy vehicle, running that stretch is suicide at night.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 23, 2014 14:51:50 GMT
In regards US and European cars; In Europe many roads, especially in towns and cities, are narrower and usually are far from straight for more than a mile or two. This is because a lot of European roads have existed for millennia, and were originally laid down with carts in mind and avoiding ground that was hard to build surfaces on. In the US roads tend to be straighter and wider, even in cities where they use a grid system - rather than the European habit of building houses in a more circular pattern around a central settlement. Because of this American cars could be larger and heavier, as in most places chances were that you wouldn't need to do much in the way of maneuvering and they had more physical space to park cars. In Europe smaller lighter cars were more practical, as they could use the small narrow twisting roads far more easily. In the more rural parts of Texas, you'll see European-style roads in various places. This is due to a variety of factors, such as the ever-present hills in much of the state and the need to go around various land claims (such as what the US government owns). I've got one such road on my newspaper delivery route, and I literally go out of my way to avoid driving a particular stretch of it. That stretch represents a steep grade, a blind curve (due to the trees), and a deer crossing area; if you're not driving an SUV or a similarly heavy vehicle, running that stretch is suicide at night. in some parts of rural Oregon, the roads are laid out around field boundaries that were established, back when the top speed of the average vehicle was a gallop. which means the corners are essentially right angles.
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Jun 23, 2014 17:36:28 GMT
I've got one house at the top of the grade and another house at the bottom of the grade.
There are two other roads up that hill, and so since I have other houses at the top of the hill I use one of those two roads to get up there. At this point, I handle everything at the top of the hill and take the other road down.
I get the house at the bottom of the hill last, as it's close enough to where I live that it's pretty much on the way.
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Jul 23, 2014 10:42:08 GMT
You bloody Yanks and you V8's..... Over here, the V6 is a better balanced engine, ...and what you can do to a V8, we can do to a W12..... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W12_engineI like the VR6 when it comes to "compact power". The VW VR6 is so small that it could fit into any car! The Passat 35i was developed for a straight-4 cylinder engine sitting sideways in a very short engine bay. The most powerful engine which could fit had 2.0 liter. Since the 35i was also built for a cheaper version of the Audio Quattro drive, they had to come up with a strong engine the size of a medium straight-4. And they came up with the VR6. I can't see how "more displacement" would do any good here! ANd since the VR6 is so small, attach a twin-turbo and plug it into your favorite compact car: And I happen to know the car which can be seen in this video, not much of displacement there either:
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Jul 23, 2014 11:02:36 GMT
Of course upgrading displacement when you don't have much of it helps:
0.6ℓ:
2.8ℓ:
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 28, 2014 15:41:43 GMT
IIRC, the VR6 has more displacement than the 2.0l straight 4.
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Jul 28, 2014 20:29:38 GMT
IIRC, the VR6 has more displacement than the 2.0l straight 4. The VR6 has 2.8 liters. Not that much more and it has a very high performance.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 28, 2014 23:57:10 GMT
IIRC, the VR6 has more displacement than the 2.0l straight 4. The VR6 has 2.8 liters. Not that much more and it has a very high performance. yeah... 40% isn't all that much difference. I mean its like comparing a 360 CID engine to a 500. they are virtually the same.
|
|