Inefficient engines

  • Thread starter TopHat
  • 125 comments
  • 6,594 views
TopHat

TopHat

7,153
killermrk
KillerMRK2
Has any one noticed the amount of large engines that are EXTREMLY inefficient?

Examples

Ford Taurus- 3.0 Liter V-6 153 hp.

Ford Fusion- 2.3 Liter I-4 160 hp.

As you can see, there are some bad engines out there, even within the company. That must be some OLD technology in the Taurus.
 
You're flogging a dead horse. Many people (including myself) have, in the past, debated about the low specific output of many engines (mostly American). However, just because one engine has a higher specific output than another does not mean it's a "better" engine or that it's better engineered. Engines with low specific outputs are made for various reasons (reliability, fuel economy, emissions, cost). At the end of the day, 200bhp is 200bhp, whether you get it from a turbocharged inline 4, a normally aspirated V6 or a flat 12.
 
Cadillac made a 500 cid engine (8.2 L) rated at 190 hp in 1976 (and 360 ft/lbs torque). How's that for inefficiency!

Interestingly, if you put modern intake, exhaust, and spark on it, it is good for about 350-400 hp.

EDIT: and, forgot the cool part, 500 ft-lbs torque. Hot Rod did a bit on it about 5-6 years ago. They put it in a 1981 Chevette.
 
amp88
You're flogging a dead horse. Many people (including myself) have, in the past, debated about the low specific output of many engines (mostly American). However, just because one engine has a higher specific output than another does not mean it's a "better" engine or that it's better engineered. Engines with low specific outputs are made for various reasons (reliability, fuel economy, emissions, cost). At the end of the day, 200bhp is 200bhp, whether you get it from a turbocharged inline 4, a normally aspirated V6 or a flat 12.
Click to expand...


I never said that the 4 is a better engine, but that the taurus has nearly a liter on it and 2 cylinders is outrageous!

Also, the 3.5 liter v-6 was more upscale, and the SHO had a v-8, which I would expect to be around... oh let us say 190hp?

@Skip: WOW! 8.2 liters and only 192 hp... thats really bad!
But that was at the beginning of the catalytic converter, yes?

I'm sure that if you put a new one on, it would be for more than 400hp!
 
Ford used to detune the 4.9L V8 for the 1980's Mercury Grand Marquis to 170-190hp, as I recall. The HO (high output) version for the Mustang GT had 200-230 or so at the time.

It must have detuned for improved fuel economy and possibly making a quieter car with a restictive exhaust; the Grand Marquis weighed about 4000 pounds, and no American automaker wanted "gas guzzler tax" status on their $25,000 cars.

That was then...
 
This is now...

American automakers still using 20 to 30 year old mills and getting away with it.

Ford, I hardly knew ye.
 
MatttheTuner
I never said that the 4 is a better engine, but that the taurus has nearly a liter on it and 2 cylinders is outrageous!
Click to expand...
The amount of cylinders has nothing to do with displacement, only smoothness. A '99 Viper sucks just as much air as a Bentley 8-Litre, and a Porsche 968 sucks just as much air as the Ferrari 250GTO.
Edit: Sucks air into the cylinders is how I should have phrased that.
 
If I remember correctly, the 351 (Winsor?) V8 in the early 90's civilian Crown Vic had 150hp. Not sure about the Interceptor models though.
 
theres plenty an antique engine (buick 3800) that get better fuel economy than thier contermporary counterparts.

but we wont go into how many different things make up the fuel economy of a car, just like we wont go into how many decisions result in what engine being used in what car.
 
MatttheTuner
This is now...

American automakers still using 20 to 30 year old mills and getting away with it.

Ford, I hardly knew ye.
Click to expand...

Whoa whoa whoa there, hold on a second now...!

If you sit down and look at engines not just from America, but Europe and Japan as well, you will often find that many of their current designs are based uppon that of ones that were drawn up decades ago as well. Granted they may not be as "guilty" as that of most American companies, but atleast take that into consideration for a moment...

I think the point you are missing here is that to develop all-new designs, it is extremely costly, and involves a lot of time and money (which most automakers do not have) to create a new V6 for a few sedans.

For example, GM's current lineup of V6s that include the 3.5L and 3.9L variants both have a history that tie them back to the 1970s. Granted they aren't identical designs, but their roots are still there. Now consider this: 20-30 years later, the engines are still around, are extremely fuel efficent, and are extremely cheap to build. When the origional design works, and you can continue to evolve it to make it better, why change it?

GM recently updated the engines once again, the second time in three years. Power output has been boosted, fuel economy increased, all in the name of "value" to draw in customers from the Japanese competition. But even then, the engines are still drastically different in design. We continue to use OHV at GM because it works well enough to not need replacement, and the American engines continue to be tuned more to the low-end and mid-range for torque than horsepower. A bad thing? Certainly not, especially when you consider who exactly are driving these cars and what they do with them...

Overall, the point I'm getting at is that you are kinda taking some of these things out of context here. Comparing a "modern" 2.3L I4 to a decidedly "old-school" 3.0L V6 is a bit odd, given that not only is that engine dead, but so too is the Tuarus as well. Turn the clock back on Toyota for instance, you will find that the old 2.2L I4 in models like the Camry produced a measely 125 BHP. Today, even the "crude" GM ECOTEC engine of the same displacement puts out 145 BHP...
 
Due to the fact that engines with a low specific output tend to be more fuel efficient and cost less, I always keep the context of the vehicle that carries them in mind. However, that still doesn't eliminate glaring differences between manufacturers, specifically those from Detroit and those from Japan/Europe...

For example, the 1996 Toyota Corolla DX made 105hp from a 1.8L four-cylinder, which is about 58hp/L. Not amazing, but not bad considering the fact that it's supposed to be a fuel-efficient little compact car.
Meanwhile, the 1996 Ford Mustang GT made 215hp from a 4.6L V8, which is about 47hp/L......uh, what?
It's not like the GT produced a million times as much torque, either -- although it made 285lb.ft, which is 62lb.ft/L, at 3500rpm, the Corolla made 110lb.ft (61lb.ft/L), albeit at a significantly higher 4400rpm.

Nowadays, Ford have improved upon that same 4.6L to achieve a whopping 300hp, for 65hp/L, and 320lb.ft, for 70lb.ft/L, at 4500rpm.
What about Toyota? The Yaris makes 105hp from a 1.5L, which is 70hp/L, and 103lb.ft, which is 68lb.ft/L, at 4200rpm.

How is it that the small Toyotas are powered by engines that are about as power-efficient as Ford's musclecar icon? Surely, the Mustang should have been designed with a little more...performance in mind than the Yaris or Corolla, right?

Now, now, I'm sure some of you are crying foul because the Yaris' engine is bound to be of a newer design than the Mustang's modular engine, so let's take a look at one of the best and latest engines Detroit has offered, the LS7:

The Corvette Z06 makes 507hp from a 7L V8, which is 72hp/L. It also makes 470lb.ft, which is 67lb.ft/L, at 4800rpm.
Now, let's compare that to the BMW M5, which makes 80hp/L, and 71lb.ft/L with a torque peak of 4500rpm.....

Now, you may have noticed that I chose a more performance-oriented rival for the american car, and that would be a fair claim. It isn't quite as easy to find "civilian" cars that match the Z06's specific output as it is to find matches for the Mustang GT. However, there is one notable thing about my selection of the M5 (and I'm not referring to my BMW fanboyism)...the M5 I chose to go head-to-head with the 'Vette was the 1985 model, which made 282hp and 251lb.ft from a 3.5L 6-cylinder.

Furthermore, it isn't impossible to find an "ordinary" car to compare to Chevrolet's bang-for-your-buck masterpiece. One such car is the Nissan's Sentra, which makes 115hp from a 1.6L 4-cylinder, which is 72hp/L, and 110lb.ft, aka 69lb.ft/L, at 4500rpm.

Oh, and that's the 1995 Sentra.

Seriously, Detroit just doesn't know how to get good power out of an engine, and it isn't because they're "concentrating on torque." That's why I included the torque and peak torque RPM numbers in all of this. It's really rather depressing. :rolleyes:
 
YSSMAN
I think the point you are missing here is that to develop all-new designs, it is extremely costly, and involves a lot of time and money (which most automakers do not have) to create a new V6 for a few sedans.
Click to expand...

Exactly; even very profitable automakers like Toyota and Porsche might introduce one all-new-from-the-block-up every 5-7 years. Usually, and especially in these times of platform and part-sharing, only one or two all-new engine(s) are set for sale every year for the entire line of trucks and automobiles!

For example, Toyota's UZ-series V8 engines (4.0-4.6L) date back to the mid-1980s. They've been updated, the bore increased, there's been variable valve timing included...but the same basic architechture exists.

The 2.5-3.5L V6 mills seen on a lot of Toyota/Lexuses are all based on the same basic design; it's evolved from designs of the mid-1990s.

Unless there's a catastrophic design flaw, or a combination of terrible fuel efficiency and a lack of power and torque, engines tend to stick around for at least a decade or two in some form (sometimes 5 decades, if it's a 427 Chevy "short block").
 
skip0110
Cadillac made a 500 cid engine (8.2 L) rated at 190 hp in 1976 (and 360 ft/lbs torque). How's that for inefficiency!
Click to expand...
what about fords first car
55bhp from a 19litre inline 4 :lol:
ford_999_front.jpg
 
Let's put the Evo VIII FQ-400 in with the numbers. Two litres, ~400 bhp, 200 bhp pr. litre, right? Well, the problem is, however; it's useless because of big turbo lag.
However, my Daihatsu produces 94 bhp out from 1.3 litres. Not bad, huh?
One more thing. Take the VR6 as an example of an inefficient engine, in numbers. 170 bhp in the Golf, still it's got 2.8 litres. Not extremly good, but we have to remember that it's a very creamy engine with nice low down torque, something you might not find in other engines.
New technologies can combine on paper-efficiency with real life-efficiency, such as VTEC and MIVEC. A Mitsubishi Lancer Evo VII is significantly slower low down than a Mitsubishi Evo IX, because the IX has MIVEC technology. 400 Nm from 2 litres is not bad.
 
eiriksmil
Take the VR6 as an example of an inefficient engine, in numbers. 170 bhp in the Golf, still it's got 2.8 litres. Not extremly good, but we have to remember that it's a very creamy engine with nice low down torque, something you might not find in other engines.
Click to expand...
thats cause VW detuned it.....
 
Holdenhsvgtsr
thats cause VW detuned it.....
Click to expand...

Interesting. Well, the Rado makes ~190 bhp, so it seems logical. Do you know how much it could make from stock, without detuning? I've heard about people making 400 bhp with turbokits on VR6s, but I don't know if that's on stock internals.
 
eiriksmil
Interesting. Well, the Rado makes ~190 bhp, so it seems logical. Do you know how much it could make from stock, without detuning? I've heard about people making 400 bhp with turbokits on VR6s, but I don't know if that's on stock internals.
Click to expand...

well i know someone that had 300bhp without FI,although at the time the mk3 golf gti was detuned too so it wasnt faster than the vr6,with an exhaust and detuned ive seen one hit 173bhp
 
eiriksmil
Let's put the Evo VIII FQ-400 in with the numbers. Two litres, ~400 bhp, 200 bhp pr. litre, right? Well, the problem is, however; it's useless because of big turbo lag.
Click to expand...

Sure the FQ400's turbo lag is quite prominent but nothing dropping back a cog or two wont fix. Useless it too strong of a word for the FQ400.

Most people take Clarksons test on the FQ400 too strongly, no one should expect good performance from pretty much any turbocharged performance car in top gear with the speed low like that. If clarkson had the FQ400 in the correct cruising gear for that speed it would have accelerated much quicker and would have taken much less time to get on-boost.
 
VIPERGTSR01
Sure the FQ400's turbo lag is quite prominent but nothing dropping back a cog or two wont fix. Useless it too strong of a word for the FQ400.

Most people take Clarksons test on the FQ400 too strongly, no one should expect good performance from pretty much any turbocharged performance car in top gear with the speed low like that. If clarkson had the FQ400 in the correct cruising gear for that speed it would have accelerated much quicker and would have taken much less time to get on-boost.
Click to expand...

Of course, but the problem is for example that the VIII FQ-400 didn't have MIVEC. Take a modded Evo IX making 405 bhp up against a FQ-400, and the IX will win, thanks to MIVEC and better torque.
 
Wolfe2x7
Seriously, Detroit just doesn't know how to get good power out of an engine, and it isn't because they're "concentrating on torque." That's why I included the torque and peak torque RPM numbers in all of this. It's really rather depressing. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Your whole analysis has absolutely no bearing on the efficiency of an engine. You should look at brake specific fuel consmption numbers. If the Toyota is running rich wuth lots of ignition adavance while the Mustang is running lean with no advance, it's possible the Mustang is in fact the more efficient engine.
 
Holdenhsvgtsr
unless its a TDi ;)
Click to expand...

Thats why I said "pretty much any", for exceptions that are designed for low RPM torque.

eiriksmil
Of course, but the problem is for example that the VIII FQ-400 didn't have MIVEC. Take a modded Evo IX making 405 bhp up against a FQ-400, and the IX will win, thanks to MIVEC and better torque.
Click to expand...


Yes MIVEC would help some with off-boost performance, I would say (havent checked) that much of the FQ400's not so hot off boost performance would be contributed to Mitsubishi UK building the FQ400 engines lower compression to increase possible reliablity from the factory.

While personal modded MIVEC engines to 400hp typically would still have the standard higher compression internals, which would also aid in off-boost torque over the FQ400.
 
I know it's common sport to rag on American auto-makers. But what about the 1.9 TDi from VW that makes only 100 bhp? Yes the Torque figures are way better than they have any right to be, and the thing is capable of 50MPG.

Take the whole picture into account.
The reason that American manufacturers made such ridiculous HP claims, is that in the "heyday" HP was total HP, before the engine even went into the car, or, was hooked up to any accessories.
They still do that today, to some extent.
My Excursion, is rated at 325 HP/570lb/ft torque. It'll never put that on the ground at the drive wheels. But for a vehicle its size my "seat of the pants" dyno tells me that it really does perform well in the acceleration numbers.
I also know that big 6.0 liter motor will pull down about 20 mpg if I keep my foot out of it.

If you go back and look at the Ford 5.8L (351cid). It came in two versions back "in the day". The 351-C, which was the hot rod. It put out very good HP/TQ numbers, and drank gas like it was going out of style.
The 351-W, on the other hand, ended up in cars like my mom's 71 Galaxie, and the LTD. In this configuration it was really nothing more than basic transportation. It wasn't quick, or fast. However, you could load 6 of your friends comfortably into a 2-ton 2-dr sedan and still pull down mileage figures in the 20's.
My 4-door Camry is able to pull better mileage, and truthfully, is quicker than mom's old Galaxie. But, I'd never try to haul 6 people in it, and expect them to be anything but cramped and miserable.
Like Galaxies, LTD, etc. The Taurus, Focus, and some of the others are nothing more than "basic transport" and like the Galaxie, Fairlane, and Falcon that came before them they are America's version of the Kia Rio, Nissan Sentra, Etc. Good, cheap, reliable, "throwaway" cars, that are basically discarded when they have finished fulfilling thier assigned purpose.
 
Torque figures, to me, have little bearing on the vehicle's ability when power figures are as low as they are in Volkswagen's 1.9-liter turbodiesel. Americans run to torque whenever someone questions their specific output, but torque isn't that good a statistic.
 
M5Power
Torque figures, to me, have little bearing on the vehicle's ability when power figures are as low as they are in Volkswagen's 1.9-liter turbodiesel. Americans run to torque whenever someone questions their specific output, but torque isn't that good a statistic.
Click to expand...
torque is the most important factor to a cars ablity :dopey:

and the vag 1.9tdi can be an extremely powerful engine,ive seen one out do a toyota supra,got a video of it somewhere

this is another one though :P
 
Wolfe2x7
Seriously, Detroit just doesn't know how to get good power out of an engine, and it isn't because they're "concentrating on torque." That's why I included the torque and peak torque RPM numbers in all of this. It's really rather depressing. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Your post was indeed an interesting one, but outright calling the folks in Detroit idiots for not knowing how to build an engine is going a bit too far. Power numbers aside, you do make an interesting case against the American models... But then if we were to talk costs and fuel efficency, the Americans certainly know what they are doing.

But as someone pointed out, the seat-of-your-pants Dyno is one of the best things out there, and American power works. The 5.3L V8 in our Avalanche may be "inefficient" by most standards (295 BHP), it works out well, and pulls hard all the way up to redline. The engine is cheap to build, maintain, and operate and you can't complain about that. It gets the job done, and certainly has done a great job extending the legacy of the 327ci V8 of the 1960s.
 
The 1.9 TDI now makes 114 hp and should we really be comparing it to petrol cars because after all it is a diesel, and a rather old one at that. The 2.0TDI unit makes 170bhp and either way but of the engines get massive MPG. Also if you re-map the 2.0TD you will see 230bhp easy and over 300lbft of torque.

As for the FQ's the new FQ360 has more torque than the FQ400 and it comes alot earlier too. Awesome machine.
 

Latest Posts

Back