Small displacement v8's
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /o/ - Auto
You are currently reading a thread in /o/ - Auto
hey /o/, how come there aren't any small displacement v8's?
like 2L v8's.
I imagine such motors would be pretty economical while providing decent power
>>14683908
Have you ever heard of a 6L v4?
>>14683908
Those would be tiny cylinders.
>>14683908
Just splice together two inline 4's
they would need to rev very high to make any decent power.
Just look at Formula 1
It's not worth the mechanical complexity and therefore price unless you're bound by racing rules. The F1 had several eras when small displacement V8s were raced, but they could've just as well been any other configuration.
>>14683931
Guess you don't know about the 28.5 liter 4 cylinder Fiat.
>>14683908
There are some small v8's. Ford has the 4.6 liter. The Lincoln LS had a 3.9 liter v8 made by Jaguar. The thing is these "small" v8 engines are not small physically because they are over head cammed. A 5.7 liter LS1 is smaller than the 4.6 liter Ford engine. Small v8's still use more gas at idle simply due to the number of cylinders that have to run. They are less reliable because only Europe ever designs them and they can't design anything reliable to save their soul.
>>14683948
Why not two bike engines?
There were some (small displacement V8s) in sports-cars (lotus esprit) and even everyday cars (ford taurus sho) i imagine they aren't very stable and don't offer many advantages and just aren't worth the investment when you can have something like a 4.6 or 5.7 be more reliable and get pretty decent gas mileage while making the power you want.
That's my guess anyway.
M60B30
Applications:
1992-1995 E34 530i
1992-1994 E32 730i
1994-1996 E38 730i
>>14683988
>transverse v8
a flatplane crank 2-3 liter V8 is my dream engine.
>>14683908
TVR and Ferrari made 2 litre V8s, they weren't particularly economical. More cylinders = more friction.
>>14683981
that is two bike engines.
>>14684020
>transverse v engines in general
>>14683997
But it was worse than the m60b40 in every imaginable way
>>14684023
>TVR and Ferrari made 2 litre V8s, they weren't particularly economical. More cylinders = more friction.
do you think that might just be because they were designed in the 70's?
>>14683908
Smallest 'regular' production V8's are probably the 1UZ, and Buick/Rovers 3.5 litre, although the latter has the block size to accomodate ~5 litres of displacement.
Of you want anything smaller than that, you're looking at niche units from brands like Ferrari, or something like the Synergy/Hartley V8's (two superbike engines strapped together). That, or you could go for the Esprit's 3.5 V8, but that thing isn't small thanks to the turbo's it's packaged with.
>>14683957
Not if they had the right bore:stroke ratio and cam selection. Engine layout and outright displacement has nothing to do with it.
>>14683948
>Just splice together two inline 4's
i've got a really stupid question. If you put together 2 2.0litre i4 engines, does that make the finished product a 4.0litre v8?
>>14684045
why do you think V8s are being replaced with V6s an i4s with i3s?
also the rover engine was designed in the late 50s :^)
>>14684051
bore:stroke ratio has nothing to do with it
>>14684053
Yes.
>>14684053
Displacement is only a measure of how much air the engine displaces in its cylinders. It's by no means a measure of physical size. On the right is a 5 liter pushrod v8, on the left is a 4.6 liter DOHC
>>14684053
Assuming you keep the old set of pistons (=identical bore) and fabricate a new crankshaft with the same stroke (to accomodate the eight conrods), yes, it'll be a four litre.
>>14684054
The amount of cilinders is going down because the engine's displacement is going down. If your theory was right, everyone would be rocking 1.0liter single cilinders by now.
The small V8's mentioned before where mainly inefficient because of when and by whom they where designed, not (significantly) by the added friction.
Bore:stroke ratio had everything to do with where your maximum output will be.
I had the rare pleasure of looking at the pistons in a 4.3 liter Japanese V8 the other day. The pistons were so small I was taken aback.
A 4 liter V8 has pistons so small inside it that a 2 liter V8 would have pistons about the diameter of the rod they were connected to.
A four cylinder engine could do the work this engine would do, without all of the ring drag.
>>14684071
>le all OHC engines are Ford 4.6 engines meme
fuck of faggot
>small displacement v8
>economical
Wtf
That's some high strung engine that'll be revving too hard to get any power , thus being incredibly inefficient
>>14684088
>all engines have the same bore:stroke ratio
>all 4 liter engines are the same
No.
>>14684107
>Not if they had the right bore:stroke ratio and cam selection. Engine layout and outright displacement has nothing to do with it.
>>14684075
>>14684051
>>14684128
>thinks ring drag isn't important
>doesn't understand why a single cylinder engine is an irredemably shit idea
>still memeing about bore:stroke ratio
no-one's talking about the BRM V16
So fuck you guys
>>14684146
>thinks ring drag is significant
>thinks good ideas have to be viable on a global market
>doesn't understand physics
>>14684170
feels good knowing you're wrong about everything
>>14684044
It was at least 25% better at being smaller dispacement
>>14684128
Show me a low displacement v8/10/12 with good mpg
>>14684250
Show me a small displacement V8/10/12 that was designed with mpg in mind.
Alfa Romeo Tipo 33 Stradale
2.0 litres V8
>>14684146
Sibgle cylinder engines are god tier
Motorcycles
>>14683908
Cylinder count is not linked to power. It's linked to power delivery.
Take a fucking thermodynamics class.
>>14684088
1.6 litre v16 is where its at
as for pistons think egg cup size
>>14684370
what about balance issues ?
surely a little power is lost though having more reciprocating mass in the counter balance
>tfw no one itt mentioned valve train friction
>>14684468
>valve train friction
>being significant
Pick one.
>>14683931
I dunno, here's a 11000-liter inline-six.
