Best motor ever produced?

[MasterOfReality]

The best sounding motor I have personally operated/driven has been the Caterpillar 3408E engine, in the Elphinstone AD/AE series underground trucks.

18 litre, turbocharged V8 diesel producing 518hp.

Redline was somewhere around 1800-2000rpm (from what I can remember).

Imagine the beefiest sounding V8 you have heard, slow it down so you can almost hear each cylinder firing, and then amplify the volume and bass by 100.

Fuel consumption wasn't that flash, around 500 litres in 8 operating hours!

 

[MasterOfReality]

I knew that but what I don't understand is why all performance cars aren't turbo/supercharged?

I suppose its got to do with setting benchmarks (and associated prestige with engine/car makers).

Its easy to get big power out of supercharged/turbo engines, but extracting big power out of n/a engines requires considerably more engineering.

 

[BM Epic]

I knew that but what I don't understand is why all performance cars aren't turbo/supercharged?

Hey matt,
the aspiration is to do with fuel/air,there are carburretor,fuel injection etc.
turbo's and blowers are add ons to help in the air/fuel process ie;making it happen faster with more air and fuel,a car cannot run on a turbo or blower by itself,thats what aspiration has to do with-they just help it.

 

[Matt H]

I suppose its got to do with setting benchmarks (and associated prestige with engine/car makers).

Its easy to get big power out of supercharged/turbo engines, but extracting big power out of n/a engines requires considerably more engineering.

Ahh I guess I understand now. Kinda like people racing xc in a singlespeed category, eh?

 

[dr.matt]

For me it has to be the 426ci hemi engine, only because i doubt drag racing would be anything like it is today. If it wasn't for the design of the heads on these awesome engines where would top fuel car technology be, or victor bray? he wouldn't of had a keith black (an aftermarket all alloy version of the hemi) to stick in his chevy which paved the way for now...

And a chevrolet big block, so much aftermarket gear, so easy to make ridiculous (but needed ) horsepower.

Ill aslo chuck in a vote for the 4 stroke engines in todays dirt bikes. imo the best sounding, ktms 450's.

 

[kyleman]

HEMI 426! Heeeeel yer

 

[FR Drew]

I peronally think flatheads sound whack, 6 exhaust ports and 8 cylinders just sounds odd, later V8s sound far better in general. As do A and B series BMC motors, and most everything with siamesed ports.

Personally I think that a well tuned flathead sounds fat. But moving on...

Having been up close an personal with a Fairey Firefly recently though, I'll put in a vote for the Rolls Royce Griffon. The Vulture had potential as a farkin big X24 but they never got it working well. The Griffon kicks it reliably in real life instead of being a faulty white elephant like the Vulture was. (Seriously, who the fark hangs 24 cylinders off one crankshaft?)

Pratt and Whitney 4630 Wasp Major aka "Corn Cob" blown with 28 cylinders in 4 banks of 7 and 4363 cubic inches and 4300 HP has gotta be up there as far as piston engines go. Merlins are for pussies!

 

[topher]

I knew that but what I don't understand is why all performance cars aren't turbo/supercharged?

Because some manufacturers eg honda use computer systems to harness power eg VTEC, with vtec and engine internal work you can make it go faster than a r33 gtst.

 

[Daver]

with vtec and engine internal work you can make it go faster than a r33 gtst.

Thats not really an achievement though...

 

[NS_Suburban]

The best four cylinder car/engine combo in the world: 1969-1974 Alfa romeo GT coupe, any model with the 1750 or 2000cc engines properly tuned.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=9Duhn4rpp98
seriously, don't ignore the link watch it and listen to the sound this puppy puts out. My old man used to own one of these... said it wound out to 140 mile an hour with more left in it. think about it.... 225 kays an hour with a 4 cylinder engine, made over 20 years ago. THAT is how an engine should be.

 

[Tomas]

I knew that but what I don't understand is why all performance cars aren't turbo/supercharged?

Forced induction also provides a number of problems which arent presented in NA cars, and visa versa. Turbo cars have lag, a certain turbo threshold, require more plumbing of hot pipes back through the engine... High boost can destroy engines... A supercharger can use as much as 20% of the engines power at full gun, so its required to be properly tunes as to achieve good results....

Sometimes forced induction is required... Piston aeroplanes NEED turbo's due to the thin air, to generate combustion...

As i recall, howstuffworks had a really good article on forced induction.

 

[Yowie]

Datsun L16 it's just right

Nissan FJ20T based of the FJ15 developed for F1 back in the day, did someone say 1.5L 1500HP one lappers.

Or for the diesel heads MTU 538 V16 those things will pull and pull, an engineering marvel but painfull to live with.

 

[S.]

I knew that but what I don't understand is why all performance cars aren't turbo/supercharged?

In a performance sense it's not always better. Turbo'd engines typically have erratic torque curves (ie the power arrives suddenly dur to the turbo lag) which can make traction a problem, especially whilst cornering. There is a reason why no production motorbikes come with turbos, and this is mainly it (that and the fact that another 5kg does make a big diff on a bike). Cars like the McLaren F1 and the Ferrari Enzo were designed to be naturally aspirated because that little bit of turbo lag wasn't acceptable to the designers. If you are right on the limits of traction anyway - or losing traction is a BIG drama like it is on a bike - then turbos can be more of a problem than a solution.

Essentially what forced induction does is improve the volumetric efficiency of the engine's intake (you can have a volumetric efficiency of greater than 1, which is otherwise impossible), that is to say, it means you can get a lot more fuel mixture into the system because it's not running under vacuum to try and suck the air in. Obviously this results in getting more power out of the engine (as compared to simply running a bigger engine which is invariably heavier and often also lower-revving), however as Tomas said, it puts a lot more stress on the engines and you can pretty easily destroy stuff if you just whack one on without tuning it properly.

On another note, the best motors are unquestionably the bike ones (especially the Jap ones)... who else gets 150kw out of a 1.4L engine? Who else balances their engines so well that you can bolt the engine direct to the frame without rubber mounts, without causing excessive vibration? Nothing in the (production) car world even comes close IMO.

 

[donthucktoflat]

im gonna go out on a limb and chuck the good ol' rotary out there as well.

reliability? check (based on a standard motor.. i've seen 13BTs with WELL over 270k on them and still going strong)

efficiency? check (cc for cc, nothing can match the rotor)

power? check (my car makes 200kw.. from a 1.3l motor thats pretty damn impressive) (oh yeah, thats also a STANDARD motor with only the boost wound up, FMIC, exhaust and and aftermarket fuel computer.. no bigger turbo etc etc etc)

yeah.. up the rotor

 

[n00b]

not fuel efficiency though....

 

[brisneyland]

im gonna go out on a limb and chuck the good ol' rotary out there as well.

reliability? check (based on a standard motor.. i've seen 13BTs with WELL over 270k on them and still going strong)

efficiency? check (cc for cc, nothing can match the rotor)

power? check (my car makes 200kw.. from a 1.3l motor thats pretty damn impressive) (oh yeah, thats also a STANDARD motor with only the boost wound up, FMIC, exhaust and and aftermarket fuel computer.. no bigger turbo etc etc etc)

yeah.. up the rotor

I've a sneaking suspicion swept capacity is not comparable between pistons/rotors... not sure why.

I've never, ever heard anyone saying rotaries are fuel efficient either.

 

[Oddjob]

In a performance sense it's not always better. Turbo'd engines typically have erratic torque curves (ie the power arrives suddenly dur to the turbo lag) which can make traction a problem, especially whilst cornering. There is a reason why no production motorbikes come with turbos, and this is mainly it (that and the fact that another 5kg does make a big diff on a bike). Cars like the McLaren F1 and the Ferrari Enzo were designed to be naturally aspirated because that little bit of turbo lag wasn't acceptable to the designers. If you are right on the limits of traction anyway - or losing traction is a BIG drama like it is on a bike - then turbos can be more of a problem than a solution.

Essentially what forced induction does is improve the volumetric efficiency of the engine's intake (you can have a volumetric efficiency of greater than 1, which is otherwise impossible), that is to say, it means you can get a lot more fuel mixture into the system because it's not running under vacuum to try and suck the air in. Obviously this results in getting more power out of the engine (as compared to simply running a bigger engine which is invariably heavier and often also lower-revving), however as Tomas said, it puts a lot more stress on the engines and you can pretty easily destroy stuff if you just whack one on without tuning it properly.

On another note, the best motors are unquestionably the bike ones (especially the Jap ones)... who else gets 150kw out of a 1.4L engine? Who else balances their engines so well that you can bolt the engine direct to the frame without rubber mounts, without causing excessive vibration? Nothing in the (production) car world even comes close IMO.

Just to add a bit more to what S said. Even when a turbo motor is on boost they will still generally exhibit some 'lag' as the turbine takes time to spin up to the required pressure for the engine speed. A lot of performance car designers would prefer more responsive to the power that a turbo can provide. Other designers think that the lag is acceptable, its really down to the design philosophy as much as grip and power delivery issues. Eg Gordon Murray, the designer of the McLaren F1, is said to have asked the engine designer at BMW's M division whether they could have the V12 without a flywheel to make it more responsive. On the other hand the Bugatti Veyron is not only the worlds fastest car but is also said to be one of the easiest supercars to drive.

On the other hand, turbo charging is very popular and succesful in every form of motorsport where it is allowed, simply because the power to weight advantage is so large. WRC is all turbocharged, Le Mans is dominatd by turbo (diesel) cars, INDY and Champ cars are turbos, F1 used to be turbo etc etc.

I disagree re the best motors. For the power/weight/reliability compromise nothing beats a Le Mans motor. There are more powerful motors but they either weigh more or wouldn't last 24 hours of racing punishment. There are lighter motors but they don't have the power or reliability etc etc.

 

[slip]

The bike motors are awesome bits of gear, but from a car's perspective it's interesting to see all the RB26DETT fans. I was heavily involved in the Skyline scene, and they do have their strong points, but if you haven't driven a 2JZ powered car, its a shock. Drove one recently that blew the twin GT-SS equiped 33GTR I drove out of the water, with only an ebay manifold and an XR6 turbo. 355rwkws, factory ecu. Quick bastard of a thing. It was in a Skyline too, hah.

Essentially though, if your mates are saying VL/import skyline motor is the best thing around, they know 4/5 of fuck all, and its a stupid argument anyway - best in what way...?.....

 

[Turner_rider]

Hafta second the Alfa 4 cyclinder. First used in the 60's and the basics are still used in the current models.

No the basics of classic Alfa twin cam was last used in the early 90s, and for those commenting on the 2 litre and the 1750 (which is actually not 1750) the 1.8 engine is a much sweeter unit than the 2 litre and also produces more power and torque from the factory.

In repect to Alfa engines the sweetest 4 they made was the 1.2 Sud Ti engine. Very smooth and happy to rev all day later enlargements although gave a lot more power got harsher with each increase. The quad cam 1.7 was still very nice though.

 

[floody]

I agree on the RB26, robust, advanced and excellent in some areas, extremely fragile, primitive and deficient in equally as many.