- 9,089
- Scotland
Inefficient engines
- Thread starter TopHat
- 125 comments
- 8,263 views
Poverty
(Banned)
- 3,567
Oh snap I knew it did 100hp but I forgot about the 130hp and didnt know of the 150hp version. So there you have it. Its not ineffiecient engine at all, VAG just detuned it to their require specifications.
- 9,089
- Scotland
the 150 was in the leon fr/cupra tdiOh snap I knew it did 100hp but I forgot about the 130hp and didnt know of the 150hp version. So there you have it. Its not ineffiecient engine at all, VAG just detuned it to their require specifications.
i have a video of one racing a leon cupra r and keeping up!
- 21,286
- GR-MI-USA
- YSSMAN
- YSSMAN
...Yes, and I belive as of right now we only recieve the 1.9L 100 BHP version here in the US, although I think the 2.0L version may be on the way for the Passat after 2007. There is supposed to be a "signifigant" update happening to the 1.9L version for the US market post 2007 as well, given that VW needs to meet the new "clean-diesel" standards here in the US to maintain their STRONG grip on the US Diesel market. I belive the big change was going to be the switch from mechanical to electronic injection on the engine, added to that a few other neat tricks to make it a bit cleaner alike the DCX Bluetec.
---
On a side note, I've driven the diesel in question, and it is a great way to power your car. Although it has "only" 100 BHP (my 2.0L 8V with 115 BHP), it felt a lot faster given the bias twards torque and the way it easily pulls from a stop, not requiring too much from the driver other than to shift at the appropriate time. That said, I've driven the automatic and the manual versions, and the automatic does a great job at sucking out all of the performance and fuel economy of the engine.
...But even now with the addition of the 6-speed DSG on the North American version of the car, its performance is passable for a regular gasoline model. With a 0-60 time right around 10 seconds and a top-speed set at 114 MPH, it will perform the same as any regular 2.0L 8V Jetta of the past two generations. Added to that, 33 MPG in the city and 42 MPG on the highway is especially impressive with the DSG option box checked, as it seems to not take away any of the performance of the regular manual. Although Car and Driver through their hot-footed driving only managed a 36 MPG average, that certainly isn't bad for a $23K car that can perform like any other "vanilla" sedan and save the Earth at the same time.
---
Thank God GM has the foresight to be working on diesel powered models for the US market...!
---
On a side note, I've driven the diesel in question, and it is a great way to power your car. Although it has "only" 100 BHP (my 2.0L 8V with 115 BHP), it felt a lot faster given the bias twards torque and the way it easily pulls from a stop, not requiring too much from the driver other than to shift at the appropriate time. That said, I've driven the automatic and the manual versions, and the automatic does a great job at sucking out all of the performance and fuel economy of the engine.
...But even now with the addition of the 6-speed DSG on the North American version of the car, its performance is passable for a regular gasoline model. With a 0-60 time right around 10 seconds and a top-speed set at 114 MPH, it will perform the same as any regular 2.0L 8V Jetta of the past two generations. Added to that, 33 MPG in the city and 42 MPG on the highway is especially impressive with the DSG option box checked, as it seems to not take away any of the performance of the regular manual. Although Car and Driver through their hot-footed driving only managed a 36 MPG average, that certainly isn't bad for a $23K car that can perform like any other "vanilla" sedan and save the Earth at the same time.
---
Thank God GM has the foresight to be working on diesel powered models for the US market...!
The following are Volkswagen's power and torque ratings for its present turbodiesel engines in the USA:
Jetta: 100hp/177ft-lb 1.9-liter turbodiesel SOHC 4-cylinder
New Beetle: 100hp/177ft-lb 1.9-liter turbodiesel SOHC 4-cylinder
That's all!
Torque has nothing to do, by the way, with ability. It's the amount of force required to do work - but power is a much more meaningful statistic.
Jetta: 100hp/177ft-lb 1.9-liter turbodiesel SOHC 4-cylinder
New Beetle: 100hp/177ft-lb 1.9-liter turbodiesel SOHC 4-cylinder
That's all!
Torque has nothing to do, by the way, with ability. It's the amount of force required to do work - but power is a much more meaningful statistic.
- 9,089
- Scotland
- 5,178
- Worcester, MA
- skip0110
- 6,769
- Little Elm, TX
- JCE3000GT
I think that obvious wrong entry is here because you have a problem with Ford.
Read this, http://www.toyota.com/images/vehicles/2007/camry/specs.pdf. It seems the Toyota 2.4L I4 in a MUCH LARGER CAR in the same class produces...ready...158bhp. Want more?
Mitsubishi, http://www.mitsubishicars.com/MMSA/jsp/lancer/features_specs.jsp?t=mechanical. Ralliart Lancer 2.4L I4 producing 162bhp, and I don't hear anyone saying that's "innefficient"--it's one of the sport models for christ sakes. It's downright close to the Fusion I4 numbers isn't it. Better yet, the competition to the Fusion--that being the Galant, http://www.mitsubishicars.com/MMSA/jsp/galant/features_specs.jsp?t=mechanical. 160bhp from the same 2.4L I4 that's from the Ralliart. Hmmm, more?
Mazda (USING THE SAME ENGINE AS THE FUSION I4!) in the Mazda6 5door, http://www.mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/dis...arameter=modelsSpecs&vehicleCode=M6H...that's 156bhp. Yummy, more good stuff.
Honda, http://automobiles.honda.com/models/specifications_full_specs.asp?ModelName=Accord+Sedan. 2.4L I4 with 166bhp, not that much more.
So you see that engine is right where the legitimate competition is. And having actually driven the Fusion in both I4 and V6 trims--the I4 is quite quick just like the Accord I4. If the I4 Fusion ever gets the MazdaSpeed6 drivetrain (turbo 2.3L with 260bhp+) it would be quite fast.
Two problems with that:
1. I was referring to the "power-efficiency" of the engines (okay, so that isn't really an official term, so shoot me
).2. The Mustangs are performance cars, and the Toyotas aren't. Even if the Mustang is burning less fuel for the size of its engine, Ford could (and should) tune it to burn a bit more.
I never called them "idiots" for "not knowing how to build an engine," and I understand that Detroit likes to rely on what could be considered the strongest defense they have against the Europeans and Japanese -- low prices. If you read over my conclusion again, I said that Detroit "doesn't know how to get good power out of an engine," which is simply the truth, or a very well-kept secret among the engineers. That isn't to say that the engines are bad -- it's hard to kill an engine when it struggles to make enough power to stress the materials it's made out of, and you and I have both already mentioned the price point. On the other hand, it's hard to say that the engines wouldn't be better if they made more power, especially since both of the american cars I chose for my post were performance cars.
The problem is that I believe that Detroit could spend a little bit more money on engine development, charge a little bit more for their cars, and build engines that are "great" rather than "so-so." Forgive me for expecting a brand-new $70,000 übersportscar to be powered by a V8 that makes more power/torque for its size than a 10-year-old (or older) SOHC 4-cylinder that powered a compact family sedan.
I don't dislike american cars out of an incurable spite, or because I want them to suck. I dislike american cars because they almost always fail to impress me.
- 1,823
You fail to see the importance of one glaring hole in your logic throughout the entire argument - At the end of the day, the M5 makes 282hp, and the Corvette still makes 507hp. Does having higher hp/liter make the M5 faster? No - That makes it more likely to explode under high stress.
Remember kiddos, it's not hp or ft/lbs per liter, it's hp and ft/lbs per pound. That's the only thing that matters. Period. Why don't you compare the figures for the M5 and the Sentra and those of the Z06 for hp and tq/lb?
Remember kiddos, it's not hp or ft/lbs per liter, it's hp and ft/lbs per pound. That's the only thing that matters. Period. Why don't you compare the figures for the M5 and the Sentra and those of the Z06 for hp and tq/lb?
Quite correct - and in addition to pounds and power, gearing and aerodynamics also play a much larger part than specific output ever will dream of playing. Personally, I couldn't care less if an engine has a low specific output - my last car was a 222hp 2.3-liter and the stress of that relatively high specific output combined with my aggressive driving style caused some problems to say the least.
As far as pounds per horsepower for the vehicles in question:
E28 M5 US ('88 - 256hp): 11.328
E34 M5 US ('93-'95 - 310hp): 12.258
E39 M5 ('00-'04 - 394hp): 10.213
E60 M5 ('06-_ - 500hp): 7.936
Sentra 1.8S ('00-'06 - 126hp): 21.826
C6 Z06 ('06-_ - 505hp): 6.201
There ya have it.
Is the title of this thread "Slow cars?" No.
Is the title of this thread "Inefficient engines?" Yes.
There's your answer.
Seriously, "that makes it more likely to explode under high stress?" 80hp/L is nothing. Are you telling me that you would never want to see a 560hp Z06, or, heaven forbid, a 100hp/L 700hp Z06? After all, as you said, it's hp/lb that really matters, and when you can't/don't want to reduce the weight, the only thing you can do is increase the power.
If you think that the point of my argument was that the M5, Sentra, and Toyotas are faster, then you have more issues than I ever thought you did. To claim that the Mustang and Corvette wouldn't be faster and better if they made more power per liter is just as daft, if not moreso.
- 21,286
- GR-MI-USA
- YSSMAN
- YSSMAN
While I completely understand where you are comming from Wolfe, I can't say I'm mad at Detroit for what they do. Their engines are notoriously reliable (in most cases), are quite cheap (in many forms), and produce the power that is sufficent for the needs of most people. Granted America is still a number-centric country where displacement still counts for something in many people's minds.
Granted, I'd love to see small-displacement, high-power engines make it here from Europe... But it just won't happen. Although the Opel-designed engines are moving in at a slow trickle from GM, the majority of their engines remain to be based uppon designs that were first cast in the late 1970s. Ford on the other hand seems to be outsourcing their development to Mazda in most circumstances, the newest American-made engine being the Duratec 3.5L V6.
But by every stretch of what this thread is about, DCX is still the biggest problem company for this type of work. Their rather gutless engines across the board combined with their larger displacement than most of the competition is quite dissapointing.
---
Either way, many different companies are guilty of it. My 57.5 BHP/L engine in my Wolfsburg is pretty bad by your definition, but I don't hear people calling out Volkswagen on a regular baisis for building engines like that.
As technology gets better and the American automakers pump more money into their assorted divisions to spur more competition with foreign automakers, things will get better. The General recently bumped the power output on their 3.5L V6 to 224 BHP for certain 2007 models, still offering great levels of power and economy at a very low price.
Granted, I'd love to see small-displacement, high-power engines make it here from Europe... But it just won't happen. Although the Opel-designed engines are moving in at a slow trickle from GM, the majority of their engines remain to be based uppon designs that were first cast in the late 1970s. Ford on the other hand seems to be outsourcing their development to Mazda in most circumstances, the newest American-made engine being the Duratec 3.5L V6.
But by every stretch of what this thread is about, DCX is still the biggest problem company for this type of work. Their rather gutless engines across the board combined with their larger displacement than most of the competition is quite dissapointing.
---
Either way, many different companies are guilty of it. My 57.5 BHP/L engine in my Wolfsburg is pretty bad by your definition, but I don't hear people calling out Volkswagen on a regular baisis for building engines like that.
As technology gets better and the American automakers pump more money into their assorted divisions to spur more competition with foreign automakers, things will get better. The General recently bumped the power output on their 3.5L V6 to 224 BHP for certain 2007 models, still offering great levels of power and economy at a very low price.
- 7,965
Here's what I have to say about inefficient engines:
There's plenty of them out there, and out of all the manufacturers in the world, the majority do hail from North America (that's an undisputable fact). But, this is not taking into argument overall speed and handling, because that's very heavily based on outside figures. Strictly speaking, it's pathetic that the US cannot seem to increase output from their engines, or atleast re-design them to perform more efficiently. A comment was thrown out that Ford hadn't changed their overall design of the V-6's they produce for something of 30+ years. That's not something to brag about. Think what computers would be like if they didn't change for 30 years. Your typical school calculator would take up the space of an 1800sq. ft. home.
Here's a quick comparison for those interested:
2006
Chevrolet Corvette Z06: 72.14 hp/liter (505/7.0)
Honda Civic Si: 98.5 hp/liter (197/2.0)
Ford Mustang GT: 65.22 hp/liter (300/4.6)
Honda S2000: 107.73 hp/liter (237/2.2)
Dodge Charger SRT-8: 69.67 hp/liter (425/6.1)
'05 Acura NSX: 84 hp/liter (252/3.0)
Dodge Stratus R/T: 74.07 hp/liter (200/2.7)
Chevrolet Cobalt SS: 71.25 hp/liter (171/2.4)
Ford Focus ZX3: 68 hp/liter (136/2.0)
No sarcasm needed, the North American market doesn't compare.
There's plenty of them out there, and out of all the manufacturers in the world, the majority do hail from North America (that's an undisputable fact). But, this is not taking into argument overall speed and handling, because that's very heavily based on outside figures. Strictly speaking, it's pathetic that the US cannot seem to increase output from their engines, or atleast re-design them to perform more efficiently. A comment was thrown out that Ford hadn't changed their overall design of the V-6's they produce for something of 30+ years. That's not something to brag about. Think what computers would be like if they didn't change for 30 years. Your typical school calculator would take up the space of an 1800sq. ft. home.
Here's a quick comparison for those interested:
2006
Chevrolet Corvette Z06: 72.14 hp/liter (505/7.0)
Honda Civic Si: 98.5 hp/liter (197/2.0)
Ford Mustang GT: 65.22 hp/liter (300/4.6)
Honda S2000: 107.73 hp/liter (237/2.2)
Dodge Charger SRT-8: 69.67 hp/liter (425/6.1)
'05 Acura NSX: 84 hp/liter (252/3.0)
Dodge Stratus R/T: 74.07 hp/liter (200/2.7)
Chevrolet Cobalt SS: 71.25 hp/liter (171/2.4)
Ford Focus ZX3: 68 hp/liter (136/2.0)
No sarcasm needed, the North American market doesn't compare.
- 21,286
- GR-MI-USA
- YSSMAN
- YSSMAN
So let me ask then, what is the invisible threshold for what is acceptable and what isn't? You thow numbers around like there is a table for reference, and yet there isn't a clear definition to what is "right" and what is "wrong" in this situation.
...Are we talking anything over 80 BHP/L? More than that? A more realistic 75 BHP/L?
Given your current postings of what could be considered questionable, even the beloved BMW 328i falls into the category with their 76.6 BHP/L on the 3.0L I6. Even worse would be the 325i with 72.6 BHP/L using the same 3.0L I6 design from before.
Mercedes-Benz doesn't get off scotch-free either. We talk about V8s, so what about their current 5.4L V8 powering the 55-series models? The low rating of 67 BHP/L ranks it quite low as well. Even the masterful 5.5L mill in the new 550-series models only makes 69 BHP/L, ranking it as "low" as well.
Toyota suffers the same problem with their 2.4L 2AZ-FE in the Toyota Camry. With a poor rating of 64.8 BHP/L, that puts it below even the Cobalt's rather "crude" 2.4L engine that powers the naturally aspirated SS. Even worse would be their current 4.0L 1GR-FE that sees duty in their trucks and SUVs, rated at 59 BHP/L, probably one of the best contenders for lowest output thus far in a modern vehicle.
---
That said, it isn't all that bad. GM's North American lineup isn't the best by any long-shot, but they have gotten better about it:
(Inline-Four))
- 2.0L DI: 130 BHP/L
- 2.2L LSJ: 93 BHP/L
- 2.2L L61: 68 BHP/L
- 2.4L LE5: 74 BHP/L
(Inline-Five)
- 3.7L LLR: 65 BHP/L
(Straight-Six)
- 4.2L Atlas LL8: 69 BHP/L
(Six-Cylinder)
- 2.8L LP1T: 89 BHP/L
- 3.5L LZE: 60 BHP/L
- 3.5L LZ4: 64 BHP/L
- 3.6L LY4: 71 BHP/L
- 3.9L LZ9: 61 BHP/L
(Eight-Cylinder)
- 4.4L S/C: 100 BHP/L
- 4.4L S/C HO: 106 BHP/L
- 4.6L LD8: 59 BHP/L
- 4.6L LH2: 69 BHP/L
- 5.3L LH6: 61 BHP/L
- 5.3L LS4: 57 BHP/L
- 6.0L L79: 61 BHP/L
- 6.0L LS2: 67 BHP/L
- 6.2L L92: 61 BHP/L
- 6.2L L92 HO: 65 BHP/L
- 7.0L LS7: 72 BHP/L
---
I'd be happy to go through other automakers as well...
(BTW: Did we decide on a standard???)
...Are we talking anything over 80 BHP/L? More than that? A more realistic 75 BHP/L?
Given your current postings of what could be considered questionable, even the beloved BMW 328i falls into the category with their 76.6 BHP/L on the 3.0L I6. Even worse would be the 325i with 72.6 BHP/L using the same 3.0L I6 design from before.
Mercedes-Benz doesn't get off scotch-free either. We talk about V8s, so what about their current 5.4L V8 powering the 55-series models? The low rating of 67 BHP/L ranks it quite low as well. Even the masterful 5.5L mill in the new 550-series models only makes 69 BHP/L, ranking it as "low" as well.
Toyota suffers the same problem with their 2.4L 2AZ-FE in the Toyota Camry. With a poor rating of 64.8 BHP/L, that puts it below even the Cobalt's rather "crude" 2.4L engine that powers the naturally aspirated SS. Even worse would be their current 4.0L 1GR-FE that sees duty in their trucks and SUVs, rated at 59 BHP/L, probably one of the best contenders for lowest output thus far in a modern vehicle.
---
That said, it isn't all that bad. GM's North American lineup isn't the best by any long-shot, but they have gotten better about it:
(Inline-Four))
- 2.0L DI: 130 BHP/L
- 2.2L LSJ: 93 BHP/L
- 2.2L L61: 68 BHP/L
- 2.4L LE5: 74 BHP/L
(Inline-Five)
- 3.7L LLR: 65 BHP/L
(Straight-Six)
- 4.2L Atlas LL8: 69 BHP/L
(Six-Cylinder)
- 2.8L LP1T: 89 BHP/L
- 3.5L LZE: 60 BHP/L
- 3.5L LZ4: 64 BHP/L
- 3.6L LY4: 71 BHP/L
- 3.9L LZ9: 61 BHP/L
(Eight-Cylinder)
- 4.4L S/C: 100 BHP/L
- 4.4L S/C HO: 106 BHP/L
- 4.6L LD8: 59 BHP/L
- 4.6L LH2: 69 BHP/L
- 5.3L LH6: 61 BHP/L
- 5.3L LS4: 57 BHP/L
- 6.0L L79: 61 BHP/L
- 6.0L LS2: 67 BHP/L
- 6.2L L92: 61 BHP/L
- 6.2L L92 HO: 65 BHP/L
- 7.0L LS7: 72 BHP/L
---
I'd be happy to go through other automakers as well...
(BTW: Did we decide on a standard???)
First part of my first post in this thread, on the first page: "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."
An econobox or family car can get away with lower specific output numbers. It only makes sense, because they don't rely on power much, and are coveted for their fuel economy.
However, a roaring sportscar should be expected to get a little more bang for its breath. Otherwise, those larger cylinders are just wasting space.
As I've said, it depends on the car, but if I had to come up with a sort of scale, it would go something like this:
- Econoboxes, family cars and such should fall somewhere above 40hp/L, preferably above 50hp/L. Anything below 40hp/L is just dreadful.
- Sports sedans and any other "sorta sporty" car must fall somewhere above 50hp/L, preferably above 60hp/L.
- True sportscars and top-of-the-line versions of the previous category (read: BMW's M division, Cadillac's V division, that kind of thing) should fall somewhere above 70hp/L, but really ought to be making 80hp/L or more.
- 100hp/L is the "ceiling" of what I realistically expect from a naturally-aspirated production car, but the "standard" of what I expect from a turbocharged one.
Therefore, 125hp from 2.0L is no big deal in something along the lines of a Camry, but 375hp from a 6.0L exotic car would be appalling. Does that help, YSSMAN?
A summary of the thread that Firebird is linking to, here: "HP/L is useless because a car with a 100hp/L 1.0L engine isn't more powerful or faster than a car with a 50hp/L 5.0L engine, and it says nothing about fuel economy, emissions, or the weight of the engine."
My response: A fair point, but consider this -- specific output, like many of the other measurements, ratios, or specifications of a car, is useless by itself, but useful as a comparison tool when used in addition to the other measurements, ratios, or specifications of a car. You must also keep in mind what it is that you, personally, are expecting from an engine. Fuel economy? Small size? Low weight? Low emissions? Lots of power? All of these variables will influence the specific output "range" that should be expected, and most of those questions should be answered as soon as you know what type of car it is you're talking about.
- 1,823
Did I say the title of the thread was slow cars? No. I said hp/l is a useless measurement, thrown around by fanboys who think that because an engine can make #hp/liter that it's the greatest engine known to man, even though there are more powerful engines in existance. There's your answer.
I didn't say 80hp/liter would absolutely, one hundred percent mean an engine was going to hand grenade. Drop an extra 1,000hp into your M5 engine and see how long it lasts. Now do the same to a 400+ cubic inch V8. Get the picture?
No, your argument is that since they make more hp/l, they're "better" engines, or that American auto manufacturers suck because they "can't" get more horsepower/liter. Which is more daft than you could ever dream of calling me.
My argument is, has been, and always will be - Horsepower per liter is a meaningless statistic. Period. It doesn't matter if an engine is 3l or 13l, horsepower is horsepower and the only difference is the bigger the engine, the less strain you need to put on it to make that power, and the more reliable it is.
///M-Spec
Staff Emeritus
- 4,928
I'd like to play a little game.
Let's say I have a bare chassis forumla car sitting in my garage. I decide I want to enter the Yackity-Schmakity Formula Cup, but first I need a powertrain.
Let's say the rules allow one of two production engines. The LS7 from the C6 Z06 or the S85 from the E60 M5 / E63 M6. The engines must remain absolutely stock and retain all auxillery equipment. It must also use factory engine management. There is a spec transmission that will mate to either motor (boggle that). Gearing is free; meaning you can pick whatever gearset your heart desires. The rules also decree that the rolling chassis has a minimum weight of 1400 lbs. without the engine, so anything beyond that is all motor.
Obviously, I want to win the YSF Cup. To do so, I need something powerful, light, compact and fuel efficient. Since I need all the money I can get for other expenses related to running the series, I would like an inexpensive engine too. Can someone tell me which engine I should put in my YSF Cup car?
And why?
M
Let's say I have a bare chassis forumla car sitting in my garage. I decide I want to enter the Yackity-Schmakity Formula Cup, but first I need a powertrain.
Let's say the rules allow one of two production engines. The LS7 from the C6 Z06 or the S85 from the E60 M5 / E63 M6. The engines must remain absolutely stock and retain all auxillery equipment. It must also use factory engine management. There is a spec transmission that will mate to either motor (boggle that). Gearing is free; meaning you can pick whatever gearset your heart desires. The rules also decree that the rolling chassis has a minimum weight of 1400 lbs. without the engine, so anything beyond that is all motor.
Obviously, I want to win the YSF Cup. To do so, I need something powerful, light, compact and fuel efficient. Since I need all the money I can get for other expenses related to running the series, I would like an inexpensive engine too. Can someone tell me which engine I should put in my YSF Cup car?
And why?
M
- 5,178
- Worcester, MA
- skip0110
Excellent hypothetical, ///M!
LS7 / S85
Weight: 458 lbs / 529 lbs
Horsepower: 505 hp @ 6300 rpm / 500 hp @ 7750 rpm
Torque: 470 lbf @ 4800 rpm / 383 lbf @ 6100 rpm
I'm leaving fuel economy out of this, because I suspect that GM's skip-shift along with the ridiculously tall top gear will skew the EPA figures in it's favor.
I would go for the LS7, for it's superior weight and power. I'd expect both engines to have similar reliability. Maintentace costs would probably be similar, although getting the LS7 to run on a standalone EFI harness will be considerably cheaper and simpler because GMPP sells such a controller. I don't think this is availible for the BMW.
Also, the LS-series engines are exceptionally compact and low, allowing you to place it in the chassis as you please for optimal weight distribution.
- 895
Poverty
(Banned)
- 3,567
Woulnt comparinf a Zonda AMG unit be a better comparison than that of the BMW M5 or Mercedes AMG unit as they were developed for different reasons. The mercedes unit needs to be quiet and smooth whilst being super powerful. The M5 unit also needs to be quiet and smooth and work in a more luxorious application.
What im trying to say is that the engines were developed for different purposes and to make a straight forward comparison on hp per liter doesnt paint a proper picture of a manufacturers ability to make a engine.
What im trying to say is that the engines were developed for different purposes and to make a straight forward comparison on hp per liter doesnt paint a proper picture of a manufacturers ability to make a engine.
- 6,977
- old-guy64
Great comparison for what it is.
However, While the Honda, beat the pants of the American cars for HP/liter, Where is that power in the power band? And how wide is that powerband?
The American cars may not make the "big" numbers you seek. But the meaty part of the powerband is more than 2-3000 RPM, and it appears in the part of the powerband where most of of drive. (2000-4000 RPM.)
The Hondas achieve V-TEC "switchover" somewhere north of 5500 RPM, with redline around 7000 (or way up in the stratosphere with the S2K, with V-TEC switchover north of 7000).
American engines may not be as "effecient" as those of other countries.
But they do get the job done.
What would you rather tow a 10,000 lb trailer with? A Hyper-efficient large displacement (6.0L and up) Japanese engine, or a less efficient 5.9 liter Cummins as found in a Dodge Ram pickup/6.6 Duramax/6.0 Powerstroke?(pick one)
For that matter, what comes close to that ability outside of a commercial deisel made in any other country?
- 21,286
- GR-MI-USA
- YSSMAN
- YSSMAN
Yes, it does, and thank you. But by your definition there, GM would for the most part be exempt from your criticizms. Thus, I'm happy...
---
On the engine choise issue: I would certainly go for the LS7 option. Considering that you can pick one up for about $15K with a wiring harness, it pretty much becomes a turn-key kit in most situations. Added to that I belive GM pushes a pretty solid warranty with the engine, one that should protect it for most applications.
I think the biggest question would be where you could even pick up that 5.0L V10 from BMW, much less run it without their guidance every step of the way?
---
More kudos go to Gil once again, as he makes a very interesting and valid point.
- 7,965
Well, I hate to disagree bud, but the Vtec kickin point for my Civic is at 2700 rpms, and my redline is 7200 rpms. The point at which my car loses it's powerband and starts to decrease gains per rpm, is around 6700 rpms.
Now, as far as what Pickup I would choose to use for towing 5tons, it'd probably be a Toyota Tundra or Nissan Titan (the Honda model needs to come a VERY long way for me to use it as a towing vehicle). I've towed 11,000 - 12,000 lb trailers with F-350's, 1ton Suburban's, and even a Dodge Cummins (my favorite of the Domestic Diesels). Also, comparing turbo diesels to naturally aspirated cars, isn't a truly fair comparison. If I were towing upwards of 15k lbs or more, it'd definitely be a turbo diesel pulling the trailer. But, I HIGHLY doubt that this thread was designed to discuss the relativity of the efficiency. I think it was to discuss how inefficient engines can be made.
