automationgame.com

Posted: **Wed Sep 21, 2011 7:58 pm**

Engine that produce less power per litre than Daewoo Matiz?

Posted: **Thu Sep 22, 2011 12:54 am**

Power per liter is only really relevant if you are limited in displacement in some way, and where the LS7 is really good is in power per kg.

Posted: **Thu Sep 22, 2011 1:28 am**

The torque means you need a larger, heavier clutch and larger, heavier gearbox and shafts than the BMW though. It's also much worse on fuel at low throttle openings, so you need a bigger tank too. If you're using the V10 in something different the amount of weight you can loose in the flywheel and clutch alone is astonishing.

Looked at the LS7 when building the other rally car and ended up going with the BMW engine in the end for that reason - you end up with the LS7 actually being a slightly heavier package overall, especially as the BMW engine is much stiffer torsionally (can use it as a stressed member in the frame), and the powerbands are pretty much the same (yeah, I was surprised at that too!).

There's not much in it between them really when you look at full drivetrain package.
The LS7 lets you get the engine under lower bonnet heights though, which can be an aerodynamic advantage, and is probably more suited to cruising around at low rpms for those that have forgotten about the gearstick.

Posted: **Thu Sep 22, 2011 7:31 pm**

http://www.h1v8.com/page/page/1562068.htm

2.8L (3.0L option) 32-valve V8
91Kg (200lbs) - less than a normal I-4
298kW (400HP) @ 10,000RPM
332 Nm (245 ft-lbs) @ 7500 rpm

although does cost ~$40K

Posted: **Fri Sep 23, 2011 12:46 am**

machalel wrote:http://www.h1v8.com/page/page/1562068.htm

If you think that's trick, you'll love this:

Posted: **Fri Sep 23, 2011 7:46 pm**

Not to sound rude, but what am I looking at? O.o

That tiny V8 is pretty slick, though.

Posted: **Sat Sep 24, 2011 10:42 am**

sparkyplug28 wrote:yeah and a 7.0 litre BMW v10 would blow it away

LS7 also has to be hand built and has a dry sump system much more work and expense than the bmw lump.

also the 6.0 v10 fitted to the new 7 series has 80lb-ft of torque more than the ls7 and is still 1000cc smaller

Please... Don't come with the hp/litre argument. It doesn't matter shit in the real world. What matters is how much power you can get out of as a light, externally small, cheap and reliable engine as possible. If BMW built a 7 litre V10, they wouldn't have a car big enough to fit it in.

Posted: **Sun Sep 25, 2011 7:16 am**

Fenris wrote:
sparkyplug28 wrote:yeah and a 7.0 litre BMW v10 would blow it away

LS7 also has to be hand built and has a dry sump system much more work and expense than the bmw lump.

also the 6.0 v10 fitted to the new 7 series has 80lb-ft of torque more than the ls7 and is still 1000cc smaller

Please... Don't come with the hp/litre argument. It doesn't matter shit in the real world. What matters is how much power you can get out of as a light, externally small, cheap and reliable engine as possible. If BMW built a 7 litre V10, they wouldn't have a car big enough to fit it in.

hp/liter is a valid measurement. It's a demonstration of a form of efficiency. And it absolutely matters in motorsports, and racing in general, which rank you by displacement. As for the "real world", unless you own a truck/bus/company or actually need a heavy tower/hauler, does anyone actually NEED a massive engine in their car? Anything over 250hp in the real world is excessive.

Posted: **Sun Sep 25, 2011 1:45 pm**

My measure is usually 110kw/tonne is "Enough" - I'm never really going to complain about a car with that much being too slow

Posted: **Mon Sep 26, 2011 7:50 am**

serothis wrote:
Fenris wrote:
sparkyplug28 wrote:yeah and a 7.0 litre BMW v10 would blow it away

LS7 also has to be hand built and has a dry sump system much more work and expense than the bmw lump.

also the 6.0 v10 fitted to the new 7 series has 80lb-ft of torque more than the ls7 and is still 1000cc smaller

Please... Don't come with the hp/litre argument. It doesn't matter shit in the real world. What matters is how much power you can get out of as a light, externally small, cheap and reliable engine as possible. If BMW built a 7 litre V10, they wouldn't have a car big enough to fit it in.

hp/liter is a valid measurement. It's a demonstration of a form of efficiency. And it absolutely matters in motorsports, and racing in general, which rank you by displacement. As for the "real world", unless you own a truck/bus/company or actually need a heavy tower/hauler, does anyone actually NEED a massive engine in their car? Anything over 250hp in the real world is excessive.

There's many forms of efficiency. Keep in mind, a large displacement OHV engine that turns slowly also wears slower, and its higher torque will allow you to use higher gearing than you would in a smaller DOHC engine that revs higher, but have the same peak horsepower. That should in most cases increase both your milage and reliability, with the only downside being you don't get the bragging rights of having the letters D, O, H and C on your plastic engine cover. :mrgreen:

True, it does matter in lots of forms of motorsport. But why were such regulations implented in the first place?

OHV engines still have a saying in motorsport, as Corvettes many class victories these last years in Le Mans shows, a race which speaks volumes about both reliability and performance.

That limit goes well for the wast masses of cars, but I'm personally all about pushing the envelope. Faster, stronger, better. The power in ones car is sufficent once you never, ever feel you could do with a bit more of it.

Posted: **Tue Sep 27, 2011 1:09 am**

Fenris wrote:and its higher torque will allow you to use higher gearing than you would in a smaller DOHC engine that revs higher, but have the same peak horsepower. That should in most cases increase both your milage and reliability, with the only downside being you don't get the bragging rights of having the letters D, O, H and C on your plastic engine cover.

Actually, given the speed limits in most parts of the world, anything over about a 1.4L engine these days has more than enough torque to spare to cruise along a motorway/highway/autobahn in a long enough gear to drop them into the peak efficiency/torque sweet spot. And after that the economy is reliant on throttle opening (more is better as it's less restriction to the engine), and the surface area in the combustion chambers (smaller is better as there's less wasted energy in heat into the block).

On both those, the smaller engine is much better. Which is why manufacturers are going for smaller and smaller engines with high rpms for the power and small turbos to boost the torque and efficiency.

Posted: **Tue Sep 27, 2011 1:31 am**

PhillipM wrote:
Fenris wrote:and its higher torque will allow you to use higher gearing than you would in a smaller DOHC engine that revs higher, but have the same peak horsepower. That should in most cases increase both your milage and reliability, with the only downside being you don't get the bragging rights of having the letters D, O, H and C on your plastic engine cover.

Actually, given the speed limits in most parts of the world, anything over about a 1.4L engine these days has more than enough torque to spare to cruise along a motorway/highway/autobahn in a long enough gear to drop them into the peak efficiency/torque sweet spot. And after that the economy is reliant on throttle opening (more is better as it's less restriction to the engine), and the surface area in the combustion chambers (smaller is better as there's less wasted energy in heat into the block).

On both those, the smaller engine is much better. Which is why manufacturers are going for smaller and smaller engines with high rpms for the power and small turbos to boost the torque and efficiency.

I was mainly referring to performance applications, which was what started this discussion on the first place.

However, another thing to consider when it comes to economy-engines is complexity. The recent trends of downsizing seems like a good solution to the energy problems at first glance, but as always, there's more to it than what is first appearant. A more complex engine will be costlier, while also increasing the chances of something breaking. Personally I'm curious to see how the waves of smaller and smaller engines hold up as time and wear starts taking its toll. Cheap, short-term solutions is more of a norm than an exception in the car industry, unfortunatly.

Posted: **Tue Sep 27, 2011 5:45 am**

All these little engines haven't done too bad for the past 40-odd years tbh

Posted: **Tue Sep 27, 2011 7:45 am**

PhillipM wrote:All these little engines haven't done too bad for the past 40-odd years tbh

Hehe, I'm more referring to the very small engines with a high power output for their size, those hovering between 1-1,5 litres in displacement while putting out over 100 horses. Taking it to an extreme, you could have a look at the 0.85 litre Fiat TwinAir. Cracking little engine I'm sure, but for how long?

Posted: **Tue Sep 27, 2011 9:37 am**

Fenris wrote:Hehe, I'm more referring to the very small engines with a high power output for their size, those hovering between 1-1,5 litres in displacement while putting out over 100 horses. Taking it to an extreme, you could have a look at the 0.85 litre Fiat TwinAir. Cracking little engine I'm sure, but for how long?

Take a look at a 106 rallye 1.3 sometime, engines are still going strong after 300k....

automationgame.com

OHV Teaser

Re: OHV Teaser

Re: OHV Teaser

Re: OHV Teaser

Re: OHV Teaser

Re: OHV Teaser

Re: OHV Teaser

Re: OHV Teaser

Re: OHV Teaser

Re: OHV Teaser

Re: OHV Teaser

Re: OHV Teaser

Re: OHV Teaser

Re: OHV Teaser

Re: OHV Teaser

Re: OHV Teaser