V6 Turbo vs. V12(natural)
Discussion
Is there a benefit to have a large engine with pure power, or a small (half size) engine with a turbo to produce extra power. I know that Nelson Piquet??? during the Turbo F1 era failed to qualify in the Detriot GP
. This was because the twisty streets never allowed the turbo to kick in properly. I have always had a heart for the brute force and reliability of the V12, but is the turbo'd engine a fair substitute???????
Real situation Ferrari V12 (F1) Vs. turbo-era F1 V6 (half capcity as rules stated).
>>> Edited by Polikodor on Friday 18th June 02:37
>>> Edited by Polikodor on Friday 18th June 06:23
. This was because the twisty streets never allowed the turbo to kick in properly. I have always had a heart for the brute force and reliability of the V12, but is the turbo'd engine a fair substitute??????? Real situation Ferrari V12 (F1) Vs. turbo-era F1 V6 (half capcity as rules stated).
>>> Edited by Polikodor on Friday 18th June 02:37
>>> Edited by Polikodor on Friday 18th June 06:23
Polikodor said:
Is there a benefit to have a large engine with pure power, or a small (half size) engine with a turbo to produce extra power. I know that Nelson Piquet??? during the Turbo F1 era failed to qualify in the Detriot GP
Depends where you keep the revs and where the power is produced. As you say certain turbos are practically useless at low revs and they ended up with N/A 1.5 engine with lots of back pressure. It really is too subjective to tell, would need to have a situation to be able to comment properly.
I would like to think that turbo control and design has improved enormously in the last 20 years to the point where "big-lag" is no longer an issue.
There is still a difference though and it is that instant grunt of the bigger engine (doesn't matter if it is a V6 or a V12 - it is the cc) that makes it a winner in situations where the boost never gets time to build up.
If we are comparing period F1 engines then potentially the old turbo motors are still tops but the driveability and instant response of the new engines would make it a close thing. Certainly with the current engine rules the turbo engines would be a disaster!
There is still a difference though and it is that instant grunt of the bigger engine (doesn't matter if it is a V6 or a V12 - it is the cc) that makes it a winner in situations where the boost never gets time to build up.
If we are comparing period F1 engines then potentially the old turbo motors are still tops but the driveability and instant response of the new engines would make it a close thing. Certainly with the current engine rules the turbo engines would be a disaster!
Small turbos spool up almost instantly, providing boost within .25 of a second so lag is not existant. These tend to be fitted to small to mid size engines.
Saab 2.3 Turbo's are small & provide boost at 1500rpm, most modern TDI's have small turbos too.
Huge power turbo's eg things that provide 4-500 bhp only spool up at 5-6000 rpm like the old F1 engines, but these are next to useless on the road.
Saab 2.3 Turbo's are small & provide boost at 1500rpm, most modern TDI's have small turbos too.
Huge power turbo's eg things that provide 4-500 bhp only spool up at 5-6000 rpm like the old F1 engines, but these are next to useless on the road.
I was reading in MotorSport yesterday that Senna sometimes used to coast around corners riding the clutch so that the engine would be on-boost for the exit.
Piquet apparently used to coast around corners too - he said he just couldn't get the car to stick when the turbo finally spooled up!
Piquet apparently used to coast around corners too - he said he just couldn't get the car to stick when the turbo finally spooled up!
A smaller engine is an easier package to instal and carries less mass. You have to draw the line somewhere in terms of just making it bigger all the time. Hence the need eventually for some kind of forced indution, as we demand ever more powerful cars every year. If sports car manufacturers just kept making bigger engines all the time then the hadling would suffer.
Roadrunner said:
A smaller engine is an easier package to instal and carries less mass. You have to draw the line somewhere in terms of just making it bigger all the time. ...
A long time ago there was F5000. They were basically the F1 cars of the time, but had US V8 engines in them.
www.oldracingcars.com/f5000/Default.htm
They murdered the F1 cars on the straights, but the cars were not too good round the corners, due to the engine weight... Think they were considered a tad dangerous / out of balance in terms of power/dynamics.
Roadrunner said:
If sports car manufacturers just kept making bigger engines all the time then the hadling would suffer.
I don't think so!!
Example: the Corvette Z06 - 5.7L, pure naturally-aspirated (and in fact "old-fashioned" 2 valves per cylinder too!)... 405hp. Handling does not suffer in this - it is a very quick car!!
It also, by the way, has better fuel economy than an M3, 911 Turbo, Subaru WRX STi for example!!
And I'm sure it's natural aspiration will keep that engine going a lot longer, with a lot less finicky-ness too with it...
IMHO a nice, larger displacement naturally aspirated engine gives a much more balanced and satisfying drive.
(and anyway
if you start off "big", imagine what happens if you do decide to turbo or super charge it!! Look at the figures Merc have for their SL55 AMG!!) >> Edited by c4koh on Friday 18th June 11:49
Ok, so you have 400 ponies. What if you want more power? Will you make the car a 7 litre V8, or will you add forced induction? NA only produced about 100BHP a litre, give or take. Unless you have some stupid cam, making it unsutable for road driving. Each year there is more pressure on car manufacturers to play keep up with the power game. I can't see 6 litre 911's or M3's being a smart choice!
c4koh said:
If sports car manufacturers just kept making bigger engines all the time then the hadling would suffer.
I don't think so!!
Example: the Corvette Z06 - 5.7L, pure naturally-aspirated (and in fact "old-fashioned" 2 valves per cylinder too!)... 405hp. Handling does not suffer in this - it is a very quick car!!
It also, by the way, has better fuel economy than an M3, 911 Turbo, Subaru WRX STi for example!!
And I'm sure it's natural aspiration will keep that engine going a lot longer, with a lot less finicky-ness too with it...
IMHO a nice, larger displacement naturally aspirated engine gives a much more balanced and satisfying drive.
>> Edited by c4koh on Friday 18th June 11:46
So your 5.7L Corvette does better than 24 mpg does it? I think not!
mondeoman said:
So your 5.7L Corvette does better than 24 mpg does it? I think not!
Dear oh dear, here we go again. Yanks are thirsty and can't go round corners.
OK look at these figures:
2004 Corvette Z06 = 19/28 mpg (5.7L V8)
1995 Corvette ZR1 = 17/25 mpg (5.7L V8)
2003 Ford Mustang Cobra = 17/25 mpg (SC 4.6L V8)
2004 BMW M3 = 16/24 mpg (3.2L Inline-6)
Audi 1.8 TT = 20/28 mpg (1.8L TT I4)
Aston Martin Vanquish = 11/18mpg (5.9L V12)
Honda S2000 = 20/28mpg (2L I4)
Jaguar XKR = 16/22MPG (4.0L V8)
Porsche 911 Turbo = 15/22 MPG (3.6L TT F6)
Lexus SC430 = 18/23 MPG (4.3L V8)
Subaru WRX STi = 18/24 MPG (2.5L TT I4)
Subaru WRX = 20/27 MPG (2.0L TT I4)
Toyota Supra Turbo = 18/23 MPG (3.0L TT I6)
Nissan 350Z = 19/26 mpg (auto) 20/26 mpg (manual) (3.5L V6)
Mazda RX-8 = 18/25 mpg (manual) 18/24 mpg (auto) (1.3L Rotary *Twin Rotar Renesis 13B*)
I have a ZR1 by the way, not a Z06 (of which I talked about), and do get 27mpg on a motorway run. If you have 0.5 ratio top gear (6th), you'll appreciate that this is turning 42mph per 1000 rpm - i.e. under 2000rpm at 70. Don't matter how you cut it, an engine barely idling at 70 ain't going to suck that much juice...
Personally I think the future of supercars will be in 2 litre turbo powed cars, utilising carbon fibre for low weight. Due to spiralling fuel costs the overall weight will become more important than max BHP in the future. I expect only 10% will go towards the engine cost, with 90% spent on hi tech, low mass chassis. A bit like a fuel efficient 360 stradale if you will. Bet I'll be proved right within 10 years!
c4koh said:
So your 5.7L Corvette does better than 24 mpg does it? I think not!
Dear oh dear, here we go again. Yanks are thirsty and can't go round corners.
OK look at these figures:
2004 Corvette Z06 = 19/28 mpg (5.7L V8)
1995 Corvette ZR1 = 17/25 mpg (5.7L V8)
2003 Ford Mustang Cobra = 17/25 mpg (SC 4.6L V8)
2004 BMW M3 = 16/24 mpg (3.2L Inline-6)
Audi 1.8 TT = 20/28 mpg (1.8L TT I4)
Aston Martin Vanquish = 11/18mpg (5.9L V12)
Honda S2000 = 20/28mpg (2L I4)
Jaguar XKR = 16/22MPG (4.0L V8)
Porsche 911 Turbo = 15/22 MPG (3.6L TT F6)
Lexus SC430 = 18/23 MPG (4.3L V8)
Subaru WRX STi = 18/24 MPG (2.5L TT I4)
Subaru WRX = 20/27 MPG (2.0L TT I4)
Toyota Supra Turbo = 18/23 MPG (3.0L TT I6)
Nissan 350Z = 19/26 mpg (auto) 20/26 mpg (manual) (3.5L V6)
Mazda RX-8 = 18/25 mpg (manual) 18/24 mpg (auto) (1.3L Rotary *Twin Rotar Renesis 13B*)
I have a ZR1 by the way, not a Z06 (of which I talked about), and do get 27mpg on a motorway run. If you have 0.5 ratio top gear (6th), you'll appreciate that this is turning 42mph per 1000 rpm - i.e. under 2000rpm at 70. Don't matter how you cut it, an engine barely idling at 70 ain't going to suck that much juice...
Point taken, but my M3 will get better than 30 on a motorway run at around 70 mph, probably more if I dropped to 60ish. But thats not the point. In everyday driving, in the real world, I'm averaging 24mpg, despite repeated forays into the realms of illegal velocities.. I reckon I can safely say that if I drove a Corvette in the sale spirited manner, I'd be lucky to see 17 mpg.
Roadrunner said:
Ok, so you have 400 ponies. What if you want more power? Will you make the car a 7 litre V8, or will you add forced induction? NA only produced about 100BHP a litre, give or take. Unless you have some stupid cam, making it unsutable for road driving. Each year there is more pressure on car manufacturers to play keep up with the power game. I can't see 6 litre 911's or M3's being a smart choice!
The rumoured 2006 Z06 will indeed be 7 litres, and interestingly rumoured to be 500 to 520hp!! Oh, and still with fuel-economy of the current Z06, and will weigh-in around 1370kg I beleive. If such a "big" engine is less thirsty than a smaller engine (e.g. Porkie 911) why not go to a bigger engine?? More power, less fuel, more torque across the range, and normally aspirated...
mondeoman said:
Point taken, but my M3 will get better than 30 on a motorway run at around 70 mph, probably more if I dropped to 60ish. But thats not the point. In everyday driving, in the real world, I'm averaging 24mpg, despite repeated forays into the realms of illegal velocities.. I reckon I can safely say that if I drove a Corvette in the sale spirited manner, I'd be lucky to see 17 mpg.
Point also taken - if driven in "real world" spirited driving, I get about 17.5mpg, which does included not only forays but extended stints into illegal velocities
... can't have a sports car and drive it like a grandmother now!! Interestingly, on 10,000 miles and at 85p a litre (e.g.) it costs £1600 for your 24mpg and £2300 for my 17.5mpg... £700 difference, that's all...
>> Edited by c4koh on Friday 18th June 12:06
Roadrunner said:
Personally I think the future of supercars will be in 2 litre turbo powed cars, utilising carbon fibre for low weight. Due to spiralling fuel costs the overall weight will become more important than max BHP in the future. I expect only 10% will go towards the engine cost, with 90% spent on hi tech, low mass chassis. A bit like a fuel efficient 360 stradale if you will. Bet I'll be proved right within 10 years!
I don't think so: we pay a lot more per litre of fuel in Europe than the Americans, yet I don't see people turning to 900cc cars!!
As for fuel efficiency, it is after all just a cost, and as I pointed out in my previous post, not a huge cost really anyway (compared to depreciation!) even at 85p litre!!!
If you're happy to spend let's say 15 grand on a car (see, I'm picking a "normal" car here, not even a sportscar!) instead of 10 grand, are you aware that the £5000 difference will drive you lots and lots and lots of miles??
For example, the difference between a frugal (40mpg) and not-so-frugal (20mpg) means you'd have to drive about 52000 miles!!!! to recoup the 5grand difference!!
So really, we bang on in this country about petrol prices, yet happily punt 10 grand on a car that is worth 7 grand a year later!!! Depreciation is the big cost, not petrol, even at these record-high oil prices!!!
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff