Low Power Output and High Displacement, a big debate.

[Cano]

not a single engine in the entire american car history has come out of the factory with FOUR carburetors. Not even in the 60s. The Six Pack from Mopar was the most carburetion you could buy off the showroom floor.

Much freaking less in the late 80s. As I already said -and was corrected by JCE-, they came with a TBI system. If they might have been carburated -which I highly doubt- they must have been a FOUR-BARREL carburetor, not 4 carburetors. Get real.

 

[itsbenjibrand]

There were cars with three carburetors. But I don't think there has been four like Cano said.

 

[JCE]

Those were all high performance engines. But where are the displacement figures eh?

The Daytona was a 2.2L along with the other Chrysler I4 turbos. The Sunbird was a 1.8L I4 then 2.0L I4 if memory serves... The 2.0L was about 160-165bhp.

 

[Keef]

Sustainable as long term, all because that is what GM was perceived as: Cheap, works, kind of quick, easy to maintain, lots of parts... american!

..all because that is what VAG/Daimler/BMW is perceived as: Expensive, kind of quick, difficult to maintain, lack of parts availability...German!

I do one for a Canadian company but there aren't any.

The GM small block V8 and all its successors right up to the newest of the LS series are the greatest road car engines produced, ever, for various reasons.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Two words: Compression Ratio

 

[Keef]

Two words: Compression Ratio

Two more words: Volumetric Efficiency.

 

[homeforsummer]

Dodge Daytona Turbo Shelby Z - 174 hp
Pontiac Sunbird Turbo - 150 hp
Dodge Omni Turbo - 175 hp
Pontiac Grand Am Quad 4 - 150/160/180 hp

All 4 cylinders from the 80's making today's power rates, and I believe most capable of up to around 30mpg highway.
From these, technology trinkled upwards to V6's, then V8's through the 90's.

I'd also be interested in hearing the displacement figures of those. The numbers aren't that impressive considering most of the European turbocharged 2-litres are making over 250bhp nowadays.

Hell, back in the early 1990s non-turbocharged 2.0s were already making 150bhp or more. Now we're getting that or more from 1.4 litre turbocharged engines.

I wouldn't normally be the one saying this but 150-170bhp odd is sod all.

 

[Cano]

There were cars with three carburetors. But I don't think there has been four like Cano said.

There were cars like Ferraris and Lambos from the sixties that used up to six twin-barrel Webers to feed their V12s, but we have to see what we are talking about here. They weren't freaking Monte Carlos from 1988.

 

[itsbenjibrand]

Of course I meant in the 80s Cano. I know cars from differing eras have had more.

 

[Tornado]

I'd also be interested in hearing the displacement figures of those.

Dodge Shelby Daytona/Omni GLHS. 2.2L. Former introduced in 1987. Latter introduced in 1986.
Pontiac Sunbird Turbo. 1.8L. Introduced in 1984.
Oldsmobile Cutlass Calais. 2.3L. Introduced in 1987. Originally had 160 HP. Bumped up to 180 in 1989. Was not a turbo.

The numbers aren't that impressive considering most of the European turbocharged 2-litres are making over 250bhp nowadays.

Hell, back in the early 1990s non-turbocharged 2.0s were already making 150bhp or more. Now we're getting that or more from 1.4 litre turbocharged engines.

I wouldn't normally be the one saying this but 150-170bhp odd is sod all.

I'm quite surprised you are saying it too. To be frank, I wouldn't expect you to be the one to compare a bunch of mid-1980s engines to a bunch of modern day ones and use that as proof that the 1980s ones weren't impressive, so please tell me you meant something else.

 

[Mr. CoolFiat]

Dodge Shelby Daytona/Omni GLHS. 2.2L. Former introduced in 1987. Latter introduced in 1986.
Pontiac Sunbird Turbo. 1.8L. Introduced in 1984.
Oldsmobile Cutlass Calais. 2.3L. Introduced in 1987. Originally had 160 HP. Bumped up to 180 in 1989. Was not a turbo.


I'm quite surprised you are saying it too. To be frank, I wouldn't expect you to be the one to compare a bunch of mid-1980s engines to a bunch of modern day ones and use that as proof that the 1980s ones weren't impressive, so please tell me you meant something else.

Different eras, different settings/outputs/cars... Am I right?
An 80's car today is crap when compared to their nowadays's sibling... excluding the Civic 2012...

 

[Punknoodle]

Edit: Nevermind...

 

[itsbenjibrand]

In my opinion, comparing an 80s car to one of todays is like bringing a knife to a gun fight.

 

[Perfect Balance]

I didn't read the whole thread, but I will say this. A large part of the reason behind this was the inefficiency of the components around the engine. Extremely restrictive, bad flowing cast iron exhaust manifolds shaped like a a hotdog. Very restrictive intake manifolds and throttle bodies/carburators, extremly heavy flywheels and pulleys. Power steering systems that could turn MASSIVE tires easily, ect.

This is part of the reason why throwing an exhaust on a large displacement car from back in the day provided so much power gains, because it was such an improvement over the previous designs. I think simply updating an old engine with parts like you would see today from the factory would give all of those older cars an extra 30-40whp to begin with.

Now, I'm not saying the technology didn't exist, since it did, but making a bigger engine with crappy parts to keep the emissions down was a cheaper option than engineering a highly efficient smaller engine.

 

[CSLACR]

Dodge Shelby Daytona/Omni GLHS. 2.2L. Former introduced in 1987. Latter introduced in 1986.
Pontiac Sunbird Turbo. 1.8L. Introduced in 1984.
Oldsmobile Cutlass Calais. 2.3L. Introduced in 1987. Originally had 160 HP. Bumped up to 180 in 1989. Was not a turbo.


I'm quite surprised you are saying it too. To be frank, I wouldn't expect you to be the one to compare a bunch of mid-1980s engines to a bunch of modern day ones and use that as proof that the 1980s ones weren't impressive, so please tell me you meant something else.

This.

I'm surprised at all the "crap" remarks. 180HP N/A 4 banger in 1989? And this is crap? 150HP Turbo 4 cylinder in 1984? That's 27 years ago!
They rocked the hell out of most cars on the road made then, and would still make fools of many modern day cars.

 

[JCE]

This.

I'm surprised at all the "crap" remarks. 180HP N/A 4 banger in 1989? And this is crap? 150HP Turbo 4 cylinder in 1984? That's 27 years ago!
They rocked the hell out of most cars on the road made then, and would still make fools of many modern day cars.

The GLH would seriously give a lot of modern day cars a very hard time not only in a straight line but in the corners too.

 

[homeforsummer]

I'm quite surprised you are saying it too. To be frank, I wouldn't expect you to be the one to compare a bunch of mid-1980s engines to a bunch of modern day ones and use that as proof that the 1980s ones weren't impressive, so please tell me you meant something else.

I did:

All 4 cylinders from the 80's making today's power rates

I was pointing out that those turbocharged fours really aren't making today's power rates. Not even slightly.

I don't disagree they were decent figures back then, but they don't even bear comparison with modern engines.

 

[CSLACR]

I did:



I was pointing out that those turbocharged fours really aren't making today's power rates. Not even slightly.

I don't disagree they were decent figures back then, but they don't even bear comparison with modern engines.

I see your point, but I didn't mean today's best engines, I meant you could slap any one of those engines into a car today and it would perform easily on par, while some outperform most of even today's cars.

Obviously if we're straight up comparing the power outputs, new technology wins, my response was to the blanket statement that cars didn't produce a decent output per liter in the 80's, because some did.

And if we just travel back to 10 years ago, these cars rival most of the best.

 

[homeforsummer]

I see your point, but I didn't mean today's best engines, I meant you could slap any one of those engines into a car today and it would perform easily on par, while some outperform most of even today's cars.

Obviously if we're straight up comparing the power outputs, new technology wins, my response was to the blanket statement that cars didn't produce a decent output per liter in the 80's, because some did.

And if we just travel back to 10 years ago, these cars rival most of the best.

Yeah, that makes more sense. Worth remembering though that modern cars are much heavier, which is one of the reasons even basic cars seem to have so much power these days anyway and why you can get a god-awful Camry with an easy 250bhp or whatever.

Really does depend what cars you're aiming them at too. The market in the States is quite different to that in Europe where we have literally dozens of hot hatchbacks and similar that can give 400bhp Mitsubishi Evos a run for their money, and plenty of "warm" hatchbacks that fairly easily outperform the "hot" ones from even ten years ago. Ten years ago in the States there was a lot of tat about so those 1980s cars probably could outperform them. Ten years ago over here we already had Renaultsport Clios and the like.

Always worth remembering that turbocharging is sort of a "cheats" way to make good horsepower per litre. The cleverness is in making 120bhp/litre from an NA engine like Honda did back in 1999.

 

[Famine]

Always worth remembering that turbocharging is sort of a "cheats" way to make good horsepower per litre. The cleverness is in making 120bhp/litre from an NA engine like Honda did back in 1999.

I should just throw out here the note that the point of engine capacity is to flow more air - for every 14.7ml of air you can flow, you can stuff in another 1ml of gas and bang out more power. The point of forced induction is to squidge the air down tight so you can flow more of it (which means more gas and more power). The amount of air a charger can flow should be taken into account when talking about engine capacity, because it creates effective additional capacity.

Eaton, who make superchargers, helpfully tell us the effective additional capacity of their chargers in the names. Eaton M45 gives 45cuin effective addtional capacity. M62 gives 62cuin. M90... you guessed it.

So an early 90s MX-5 BP engine produces about 140hp from 1.8 litres, or 78hp/litre (ish). Nail on an M62 and you can crack out 200hp from the engine and 111hp/litre sounds much more impressive - but the reality is that you've increased the effective engine capacity to 2.2 litres (62cuin is 400ml). That's still 90hp/litre but at least you're comparing apples to apples again.


I should add that peak power density (ratio of peak horsepower to engine capacity) isn't a terrific measure of how "good" an engine is and is marginally less useful that than in measuring how "good" the car it's in is - it's just a headline figure that can tell you a little something but is a long way from the whole picture (and the same can be said for the peak a supercharger can add - see performance maps for a clue just how complex it can get). That's not necessarily the point of this thread but it's going to come up one way or the other.

 

[homeforsummer]

Thanks for the explanation 👍 I think a lot of people, for simplicity's sake, judge hp/l based solely on the engine's quoted capacity rather than effective capacity. Not necessarily the right way to do it but it does at least set a vague standard that everyone understands.

 

[Greycap]

I should just throw out here the note that the point of engine capacity is to flow more air - for every 14.7ml of air you can flow, you can stuff in another 1ml of gas and bang out more power.

Shouldn't that be mg instead of ml though? I have a hard time believing that my car can do 100 km with around 100 litres of air, a hundred cubic metres is more like it.

 

[Famine]

Shouldn't that be mg instead of ml though?

Sort of. I didn't want to overcomplicate it with sillymath that isn't necessary to understand the principle.

A car with a 2 litre engine has the capacity to flow 2,000ml of fluid per revolution. At an ideal fuel/air mix (the stoichiometric fuel/air ratio), that 2,000ml would be 14.7 parts air to one part gas by mass - which is about 156mg of fuel to 2.29g of air.

(2 litres of air alone weighs about 2.45g at atmospheric pressure; the amount of air in there, by weight, is 14.7 times heavier than the amount of fuel)

This corresponds to a volume of about 0.22ml of gas in the 2 litres.

I have a hard time believing that my car can do 100 km with around 100 litres of air, a hundred cubic metres is more like it.

I don't work well with metric fuel economies, particularly when they've been arrived at backwards... 7l per 100km/42mpg, give or take?

In terms of volume, if you're running at stoichi, you should use 9,000 litres of air for every litre of fuel. If you're using 7 litres of fuel you should use 63,000 litres of air, which is about 63 cubic metres.

 

[Mr. CoolFiat]

Sort of. I didn't want to overcomplicate it with sillymath that isn't necessary to understand the principle.

A car with a 2 litre engine has the capacity to flow 2,000ml of fluid per revolution. At an ideal fuel/air mix (the stoichiometric fuel/air ratio), that 2,000ml would be 14.7 parts air to one part gas by mass - which is about 156mg of fuel to 2.29g of air.

(2 litres of air alone weighs about 2.45g at atmospheric pressure; the amount of air in there, by weight, is 14.7 times heavier than the amount of fuel)

This corresponds to a volume of about 0.22ml of gas in the 2 litres.


I don't work well with metric fuel economies, particularly when they've been arrived at backwards... 7l per 100km/42mpg, give or take?

In terms of volume, if you're running at stoichi, you should use 9,000 litres of air for every litre of fuel. If you're using 7 litres of fuel you should use 63,000 litres of air, which is about 63 cubic metres.

Thank you for becoming involved! You know, Mr. Indigo. You're a very knowledgeable guy, and I love it when you become involved in car discussions.
Thanks for the information too!

 

[ozyran]

Not to mention other Luxury Cars from America: Chrysler had this monstrous 5212cc V8 with the same output as the Brougham... :S

If you think that's bad, in 1978 Chrysler sold the Newport with the 440 c.i.d. (~7200 cc) V8 pounding out a whopping 185 horsepower. That was pushing a car around that weighed over 4,000 lbs. Amazingly enough, though, that V8 still cranked out 310 lb-ft of torque in spite of the emissions controls.

Now? A Chrysler 300C can be had with the 5.7L Hemi cranking out 363 hp and 394 lb-ft, capable of achieving more than double the the fuel economy (1978 rated at 8.8 mpg combined, 2011 rated at 19 mpg combined). Crazy what kind of advances have been made since then.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I should add that peak power density (ratio of peak horsepower to engine capacity) isn't a terrific measure of how "good" an engine is and is marginally less useful that than in measuring how "good" the car it's in is - it's just a headline figure that can tell you a little something but is a long way from the whole picture (and the same can be said for the peak a supercharger can add - see performance maps for a clue just how complex it can get). That's not necessarily the point of this thread but it's going to come up one way or the other.[/color][/b]

Agreed. For efficiency, BSFC (brake specific fuel consumption) is more useful, and for performance, BHPPT (break horsepower per ton) is more useful.

 

[Keef]

Now, I'm not saying the technology didn't exist, since it did, but making a bigger engine with crappy parts to keep the emissions down was a cheaper option than engineering a highly efficient smaller engine.

Not to mention the buying public didn't want small engines. They weren't popular back then. This was Merica - land of the free and home of the V8 and we're better than everybody else because our cars thunder, float, and get 6 mpg because we can. That was the general post-WW2 attitude. Thus, big V8s.

But now, we live in the era of the eco-weenie, where everybody thinks we small humans have a greater role in the environment's condition than, say, the sun. Most people, even us arrogant and ignorant Americans, are at least somewhat environmentally weeniefied conscious and so they're willing to cut back for that reason. Also, gas isn't hilariously cheap anymore. That's probably the biggest reason for trending toward more efficient engines.

But honestly, people and car companies these days must not be too worried about efficiency. While cars average much better mileage numbers, they do so with a lot more power than they did back in the day. And I firmly believe that the average weight of vehicles on the road - especially here in the States - has gone up considerably. So while today's cars to run cleaner and use less fuel, they also boast way more power, are way faster, and heavier too. Imagine how efficient they would be if they didn't have way more power, weren't way faster, and weren't heavier. It would be Europe, land of the at-least-30-mpg car.

It's not that the car companies can't do this or can't do that, or somebody has better technology or whatever, it's just that they're businesses, and businesses tend to sell products that make them money. The higher the profit margin the better.

 

[CSLACR]

If I recall correctly, Honda made a hatchback Civic in 95 that achieved 40+ city 50+ highway mileage, in the states, all gas powered.
I could be wrong, but with today's weight figures, I don't think 40mpg city is even possible without a hybrid.

The weight of today's cars makes me sick, and 75% of the weight gains come from government mandated BS. But Americans have always opened their wallets willingly for anything called "safer" by the government, 3 seconds after complaining about the same government.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

If I recall correctly, Honda made a hatchback Civic in 95 that achieved 40+ city 50+ highway mileage, in the states, all gas powered.
I could be wrong, but with today's weight figures, I don't think 40mpg city is even possible without a hybrid.

The weight of today's cars makes me sick, and 75% of the weight gains come from government mandated BS. But Americans have always opened their wallets willingly for anything called "safer" by the government, 3 seconds after complaining about the same government.

The new Fiesta will do 40mpg.

If you think that's bad, in 1978 Chrysler sold the Newport with the 440 c.i.d. (~7200 cc) V8 pounding out a whopping 185 horsepower. That was pushing a car around that weighed over 4,000 lbs. Amazingly enough, though, that V8 still cranked out 310 lb-ft of torque in spite of the emissions controls.

Now? A Chrysler 300C can be had with the 5.7L Hemi cranking out 363 hp and 394 lb-ft, capable of achieving more than double the the fuel economy (1978 rated at 8.8 mpg combined, 2011 rated at 19 mpg combined). Crazy what kind of advances have been made since then.

The emissions stuff mainly constricted air flow into and out of the engine. There was also a hit in compression too. But most of the restrictions biggest effect was to limit RPM, hence the drop in power.

 

[BrutherSuperior]

Something wasn't mentioned; leaded gasoline.

Lead was added to fuel as an anti-knock agent while also being a lubricant. The effect of leaded gasoline was the effective octane rating was much higher than it is today. 110-130 low-lead gasoline allows for much higher compression rations which effects efficiency in a good way.

Remove the lead and the octane ratings plummet. This means manufacturers had to severely limit compression ratios in their combustion engines which effected efficiency (thermal). That means that a set amount of fuel will produce less power.

Add in smog emissions and a complete lack of any sort of meaningful computing power and the OEMs had to resort to a quick and dirty method for acceptable fuel atomization & burn. That means less air in, less fuel in, and less power on tap.

It's not a coincidence that during the 90's both engine power, efficiency, and the power of computers started to rise. Look at your garden variety PC from 1992 and look at what you're using today. Now look at the power available in sports cars back in the late 80's and your typical beige-box today.

Today's Toyota Camry (V6) has more power than a 1990 Corvette (pushrod motor).