M16 Power Plant Resolved?
Discussion
That nice man Arash Farboud has bolted a Corvette Z06 engine to the Graziano transmission (as used by Noble in the M15) for his GTS development.
Now that's what the M15/M16 needs - a 500bhp normally aspirated V8. 
Now that's what the M15/M16 needs - a 500bhp normally aspirated V8. joust said:
Why? It's just 45bhp more, the engine alone weighs 50+ more kgs than the V6 meaning a worse power-to-weight and has resulted in a car £100k more????
Just a personal opinion 
: I believe a 'baby supercar' offering alternatives to Ferrari et al derives much more character from having a big NA V8 (I also happen to prefer the power delivery over a turbo). As discussed previously, there are very few supercars in history that have been successful with turbo V6s, although I'll concede there is always the opportunity to be first .... 
Oh and the £100K argument seems superfluous here - you can get the same Z06 engine in a Corvette for at least £15K less than an M15.
jeremyc said:
joust said:
Why? It's just 45bhp more, the engine alone weighs 50+ more kgs than the V6 meaning a worse power-to-weight and has resulted in a car £100k more????
Just a personal opinion : I believe a 'baby supercar' offering alternatives to Ferrari et al derives much more character from having a big NA V8 (I also happen to prefer the power delivery over a turbo). As discussed previously, there are very few supercars in history that have been successful with turbo V6s, although I'll concede there is always the opportunity to be first .... Oh and the £100K argument seems superfluous here - you can get the same Z06 engine in a Corvette for at least £15K less than an M15.
Having driven the M15, I can tell you that the V6 is more than meaty enough to humble many cars with a V8.
Also the V6 is a very shallow engine and thus a lower center of gravity.
You might find a V8 giving you a run for your money in a straight line but throught the bends..... I don't think so :-)
I'll admit that I originally wanted to see an V8 in the M15, but not now....
--Jools
It's not all about speed unless you're racing for a trophy though. The engine is the heart of any great sportscar and having one with lots of character counts for a lot in it's appeal too.......GT3 good example of that. Most people (including myself) prefer N/A engines for more linear power delivery and they don't suffer so much fromn the high engine temps of a turbo (especially on track).
On the plus side, perhaps to get the power (and torque) of the M15 by N/A means would no doubt result in the heavier engine having a negative impact on the handling.
Pros and cons to each but the appeal of a good N/A engine cannot be dismissed easily IMHO.
P.S. How much does the BMW V10 weigh?
On the plus side, perhaps to get the power (and torque) of the M15 by N/A means would no doubt result in the heavier engine having a negative impact on the handling.
Pros and cons to each but the appeal of a good N/A engine cannot be dismissed easily IMHO.
P.S. How much does the BMW V10 weigh?
V6GTO said:
AL001 said:
and they don't suffer so much fromn the high engine temps of a turbo
Perhaps you should visit the overheating threads on the Ultima forum...it might change your mind.
Martin.
I don't think you can argue that turbo charged cars don't generate a lot more heat regardless of specific problems with one particular kit car where large numbers of people make their own decisions regarding engines etc.
An obvious example is a Porker GT2 vs GT3 on track. I can assure you that the GT2 generates loads more heat!
DanH said:
I don't think you can argue that turbo charged cars don't generate a lot more heat regardless of specific problems with one particular kit car where large numbers of people make their own decisions regarding engines etc.
An obvious example is a Porker GT2 vs GT3 on track. I can assure you that the GT2 generates loads more heat!
An obvious example is a Porker GT2 vs GT3 on track. I can assure you that the GT2 generates loads more heat!
Do they generate any more heat for the HP they produce though? There may well be some hotter spots but unless they are much less efficient, the total heat energy's going to be similar isn't it?
ThatPhilBrettGuy said:
Do they generate any more heat for the HP they produce though? There may well be some hotter spots but unless they are much less efficient, the total heat energy's going to be similar isn't it?
Around 70-75% of the heat produced by a car exits either through the exhaust system or through the cooling system regardless of design. A car engine is one of the most inefficient engines we have....
A turbo doesn't 'generate' any significant amount of heat as the mechanical heat generated by the turbo is very small compared to the engine (!), but it does provide a focal point for the heat in the exhaust to radiate.
Assuming you can deal with that, then there is no difference. The Veyron seems to do alright with it's 11 radiators and 4 turbos.
An interesting article here about how you just couldn't get a V8 to generate 1000 bhp without a bit of forced induction.....
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/bugatti
J
ThatPhilBrettGuy said:
DanH said:
I don't think you can argue that turbo charged cars don't generate a lot more heat regardless of specific problems with one particular kit car where large numbers of people make their own decisions regarding engines etc.
An obvious example is a Porker GT2 vs GT3 on track. I can assure you that the GT2 generates loads more heat!
An obvious example is a Porker GT2 vs GT3 on track. I can assure you that the GT2 generates loads more heat!
Do they generate any more heat for the HP they produce though? There may well be some hotter spots but unless they are much less efficient, the total heat energy's going to be similar isn't it?
It's not that they generate more heat I don't think, its just routing that hot air about in the engine bay leads to heat soak etc, and turbos run frickin hot radiating heat too. The horsepower comparison doesn't really work as you've got more torque than NA too.
Martin I agree that mid engines add all sorts of problems, but you have less heat to dispose of when you don't run turbos.
Regardless, heat isn't the main reason I'd prefer NA engines in at least some nobles, its more about charisma and a preference for that type of power delivery.
As an aside, anyone notice that Ash Gaunt was mentioned in the Evo article as Farbouds chassis man?
Edited by DanH on Thursday 6th July 20:03
Given power to weight wise the M15 is 'worse' than my 436bhp M400, I have to agree.
If you read my writeup (and I have sympathy for you Jools - bloddy hard to give it justice in the written word isn't it....) you'll notice that despite only having 19bhp more I, to quote, called my M400 'slow' after the experience.
BHP isn't everything....
J
If you read my writeup (and I have sympathy for you Jools - bloddy hard to give it justice in the written word isn't it....) you'll notice that despite only having 19bhp more I, to quote, called my M400 'slow' after the experience.
BHP isn't everything....
J
joust said:
Why? It's just 45bhp more, the engine alone weighs 50+ more kgs than the V6 meaning a worse power-to-weight and has resulted in a car £100k more????
Given his GTS hasn't even (still) made it out, I'm not holding my breath about this one either.
J
Given his GTS hasn't even (still) made it out, I'm not holding my breath about this one either.
J
The LS7 is 458 lbs, fully dressed, and extremely compact. That's under 208 kg. 505hp and 470 lb/ft of torque stock (and far smoother power curves), plus gives much MUCH better gas economy in that heavy 3100 lb corvette than our cars get with the ford engine.
Lots of dynos have shown 40-50hp gain at the wheels on the LS7 with proper long tube headers and a mild tune.
The Ford Duratec is 360 lbs (3.0L and 2.5L are almost indentical in weight). Add the turbos, intercooler(s), and all of the associated plumbing, and we're up over 400 lbs. This means we're only talking about a 25 kg difference, probably less.
Also, the LS7 runs pretty cool and isn't as affected by high ambient temperatures. It also doesn't need the cooldown laps turbo cars often do.
AL001 said:
P.S. How much does the BMW V10 weigh?
Heavy. It's far FAR inferior to the Corvette Z06's LS7. It's 529 lbs. In fact, it's taller, wider, longer, heavier, has less power, has less torque, has a much worse power band, and is about 4x the cost.
The 6.2L V8 in the latest Mercedes is light though, at 438 lbs. It's still bigger, less efficient, and much more costly than the LS7 though.
Edited by gotapex on Thursday 6th July 22:20
gotapex said:
The LS7 is 458 lbs, fully dressed, and extremely compact.
A quick bit of googling shows your 'fully dressed' doesn't including plumbing etc. that you just added onto the stock Duratec. Couple that with the fact that the M15 engine is nothing to do with a 'stock' Duratec apart from the lump as Ford have worked specifically with Lee on it's configuration and weight and your figures are out I'm afraid.
Also, don't knock even just 25kg too hard, Porsche add £25k to a car, BMW £15k to shave less than that off on their 'specials'.
Oh - P.S. We all know your fetish for all things LS
It's a very nice engine, and one I've had the pleasure of sampling a lot in the Marci that I've driven extensively. J
Edited by joust on Thursday 6th July 22:22
Gassing Station | Noble | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff