[Wojciech]

Hi Guys!

I just trying to figure out where the engine power comes from in modern engines.

Let have a look in to few examples.

2.0L engine today can have 250-300 HP
Few years ago the limit was 200 HP

3.0 TDI (Audi) previous gen had 240HP the new one have 240-330 HP !!

3.0 TT GM 400 HP

Etc etc...

I know you can have even more for racing but How is this works for daily drive cars?
How about reliable? How about worn?

Not sure from which materials the engines are build but I think 100-120k can be a maximum for them?

Please share you opinion.

Regards,

 

[Submariner409]

Engine "power" - horsepower and torque - comes from displacement, induction method, number of cylinders, state of tune, electronic engine controls, and transmission/final drive setup.

Each of those variables is SO variable and so complicated that you should go back to college and take an automotive engineering course - all 4 years of it.

Little engines make little power and little torque; big engines make prodigious power and huge torque - BUT, any variable in that statement is dependent on the variables in the first paragraph. Some small 4-cylinder turbocharged engines make lots more power than an old Chevy 327 - but trick out the 327 and set it up for a good supercharger and it will eat that 4-cylinder alive.

There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch - TANSTAAFL

ANY engine experiences wear and tear. It's a mechanical thing and is NOT forever - BUT - with proper maintenance, intelligent driving and exercise a modern daily driver engine will probably last (today) far, far longer than any earlier engines. Again: You stress a little engine and it usually wears out/breaks quicker than a larger engine that doesn't work as hard to do the same job.

Back in the Dark Ages we had a saying: "There ain't no substitute for cubic inches !".

 

[dkozloski]

There are two schools of thought on this. The first is to have the engineers design the engine for the power and service you want; spend the money on the front end. The second school is to design an engine that runs and run it until it breaks. Fix what breaks and then run it until something else breaks and as you fix the breakage you tweak it for more power. When it produces the power you want and lasts for a while you put it on the market; spend the money on development on the back end. In reality the two schools merge at some point.

 

[Ranger]

Not sure from which materials the engines are build but I think 100-120k can be a maximum for them?

See post #366
http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/northstar-engines-system-technical-discussion/3521-high-mileage-northstar-thread-who-can-25.html

 

[Wojciech]

See post #366
http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/northstar-engines-system-technical-discussion/3521-high-mileage-northstar-thread-who-can-25.html

I'm talking about new engines.

Do you believe to reach the same milage on 2.0T 300 HP or 3.0 TT 400 HP? I don't think so..

6.2 V8 and 3.0TT has almost the same power. The second one is two times smaller, so how much effort and work it need to do to reach same power?
Installing turbo and compressor is not enough.
The engine need to be build with best quality components like for racers.

That's why I'm asking what manufacturers do to keep high reliability for these overloaded engines?

 

[C&C]

Well, you can have forged cranks, sodium filled valves, high strength rods, etc., etc. If you look at the high performance engines (and read) the technical information you can quite often see what the engineers have done, and what component upgrades were/are included in a new/revised (high powered) engine.

 

[Hoosier Daddy]

Hi Guys!

I just trying to figure out where the engine power comes from in modern engines.

Let have a look in to few examples.

2.0L engine today can have 250-300 HP
Few years ago the limit was 200 HP

3.0 TDI (Audi) previous gen had 240HP the new one have 240-330 HP !!

3.0 TT GM 400 HP

Etc etc...

I know you can have even more for racing but How is this works for daily drive cars?
How about reliable? How about worn?

Not sure from which materials the engines are build but I think 100-120k can be a maximum for them?

Please share you opinion.

Regards,

It's simple, the overwhelming factor is simply how much air the engine can consume. All other factors are very small in comparison. With forced induction, the amount of air is not restricted by the displacement. Before being outlawed, the most powerful Formula 1 engines were 1.6 litre turbo charged 4 cylinders putting out over 1,200 HP. And the most successful actually used production road car blocks.

Obviously if more power is being transmitted thru smaller parts, those parts would have to be made of better materials to have an equivalent lifespan. The useful lifetime is going to be more a factor of how much the parts cost than how much displacement the engine has. A smaller displacement engine with the same or more power could have a longer or shorter lifespan, depending on the materials and design. If the same lower grade materials are used as in the large displacement engine, clearly the small displacement engine would not last as long. On the other hand, if the manufacturer sets the same lifespan goal and builds accordingly, it will have the same lifespan. The manufactures don't publish those goals, so we often have to wait and see.

 

[DsharK]

Interesting topic... I am not a engineer, auto tech or someone with any great knowledge on this. I am just a electronics computer geek/gearhead backyard wrench.
I agree with Hoosier, materials and design have over the years been the main factors for strength, relabilty, durabilty and longevity. For myself the 'more for less' idea has never proven well in my experience. Thier is a price tag for quality. No matter what the product is I have always believed in purchasing the 'best but affordable' within ones budget.

 

[Wojciech]

It's simple, the overwhelming factor is simply how much air the engine can consume. All other factors are very small in comparison. With forced induction, the amount of air is not restricted by the displacement. Before being outlawed, the most powerful Formula 1 engines were 1.6 litre turbo charged 4 cylinders putting out over 1,200 HP. And the most successful actually used production road car blocks.

Obviously if more power is being transmitted thru smaller parts, those parts would have to be made of better materials to have an equivalent lifespan. The useful lifetime is going to be more a factor of how much the parts cost than how much displacement the engine has. A smaller displacement engine with the same or more power could have a longer or shorter lifespan, depending on the materials and design. If the same lower grade materials are used as in the large displacement engine, clearly the small displacement engine would not last as long. On the other hand, if the manufacturer sets the same lifespan goal and builds accordingly, it will have the same lifespan. The manufactures don't publish those goals, so we often have to wait and see.

Sounds simple but in reality not. F1 is more advanced engineering then our cars and cost fortune to maintenance. Every race they can rebuild they engines and the engines are build to survive the race.
Our engines need survive at least warranty time, and this is what I'm concerned about. When warranty will over then the car is dead.

Turbo, compressor and generallly engine overload is not a new technology it could be done few years ago but something began this trend.

----------

Interesting topic... I am not a engineer, auto tech or someone with any great knowledge on this. I am just a electronics computer geek/gearhead backyard wrench.
I agree with Hoosier, materials and design have over the years been the main factors for strength, relabilty, durabilty and longevity. For myself the 'more for less' idea has never proven well in my experience. Thier is a price tag for quality. No matter what the product is I have always believed in purchasing the 'best but affordable' within ones budget.

Good point.

 

[lord_galathon]

You're forgetting a few things though. "Before" cars used to be naturally aspirated, mechanically carburated, loosely built engines. They needed a break in period during which the engine, which had been loosely built, would settle down, the pistons would take their final shape, the rods, valves, etc.

Nowadays, engines have direct injection, spark plug firing is triggered by computers and the same computers count how much gasoline to air ratio to vapourize in the combustion chamber. In the case of our modern Cadillacs, the gas pedal is "fly by wire" which means that you really press on a digital potentiometer. This is one of the few things I dislike about my CTS.

Because of the parts being machined with such advanced precision, and because a computer counts every last droplet of gasoline and air sent to the combustion chamber we can have smaller displacement engines with much higher compression ratio than what we previously had.

We, as a society, have become INCREDIBLY good at making gasoline (and Diesel) engines. They are more efficient, powerful and pollute much less than ever.

We complain about gasoline prices (and with reason, specially in Quebec where we still pay over 4$/gallon for regular) but to be honest, our dollar still takes us as far as it used to in a way because any random 1980s american 2.3l four banger (like a Mustang's base engine) used to get 23MPG for what? 88HP?

Today, a 2.0l N/A engine has close to 200HP and gets 35MPG...

Look at the reliability of those two engines? Those from 1980 had nowhere near the reliability we see today in most cars, heck, you could buy any old crap Korean econobox and go 200.000km without as much as a glitch other than regular maintenance.

So yeah, engines are smaller, more economical and powerful than ever but I don't think they're any less reliable.

 

[Wojciech]

Nowadays, engines have direct injection, spark plug firing is triggered by computers and the same computers count how much gasoline to air ratio to vapourize in the combustion chamber. In the case of our modern Cadillacs, the gas pedal is "fly by wire" which means that you really press on a digital potentiometer. This is one of the few things I dislike about my CTS.

Because of the parts being machined with such advanced precision, and because a computer counts every last droplet of gasoline and air sent to the combustion chamber we can have smaller displacement engines with much higher compression ratio than what we previously had.

This stuff has been implemented at least few years ago right?
I'm not talking about 1950.

5-10 years differences and there is a huge different in engine power with almost the same technology (EGR, DI, ECU, TURBO, COMPRESSOrs etc etc ...)

In my opinion there is only two things which makes engines more powerfull:
- producers use much better components (more expensive solution) to keep these engines reliable
- engine reliability has been dropped due to overload and it should be relaible until warranty expired

It's to early to say that the new engines are reliable or not.

 

[Submariner409]

We supercharged engines with GM 4-71 and 6-71 blowers back in the 60s. Properly maintained and not abused they had about the same life expectancy of any other mass production automotive engine - but back then 75,000 was high mileage and you did oil/filter changes at 2,000 miles.

Today's mass produced turbo and blower engines carry long warranties - the same as every other automobile on the market.

You're trying to create a mountain out of a molehill. "New engines" ???? Quick - when did automakers begin offering multiple carburetion, cam options, rear end ratio options, supercharged and turbocharged engine options - all of which carried the same corporate new car warranty ??????? (and new car warranties - all new car warranties - were fractions of today's 5 and 6 figure mileages.)

 

[ratmonster]

I thought horsepower came from how many hamsters you could fit in the wheel under the hood, and if you wanted more power, your replaced your old wheel with a bigger one full of guinea pigs. Maybe that's just a North Carolina thing.

 

[Wojciech]

You're trying to create a mountain out of a molehill. "New engines" ???? Quick - when did automakers begin offering multiple carburetion, cam options, rear end ratio options, supercharged and turbocharged engine options - all of which carried the same corporate new car warranty ??????? (and new car warranties - all new car warranties - were fractions of today's 5 and 6 figure mileages.)

Ages ago ...

And how dou you know about reliability of thes new engines if they were just introduced to the production?
Time will show.

You can have 2.0T 200HP or 300HP from the same engine.
Let's assume they are build with the same components.

So which one will do more mileage ?

If you want to do same milage on the second engine you have to build it with better components, otherwise it will blow up or pistons will transform to liquid, right?

And that's is my point.

 

[Submariner409]

Again ............ Please stop trying to make mountains out of molehills .............. YOU predict the longevity of a small 2015 turbocharged engine. File it in your database. Come back in 15 years and post the results.

 

[Aron9000]

^ I'm still not completely sold on turbocharged engines for mass market cars like a Ford Fusion, F150, ******* Sonota, etc.

Keep in mind those turbocharged cars are more susceptible to problems with old/contaminated oil. Manufacturers are now perscribing 7500, 10k, 15k mile oil change intervals. Honestly I think that is way too long, as even a new engine might eat a quart of oil every 15k, and how often does the average moron check the oil level? For that matter, that same moron is the one who will put off oil changes for 1, 3, 5k miles. BMW has had a lot of problems with their newer turbocharged V8's, a lot of people think its due to the ridiculously long service interval between oil changes(of course they are long intervals, because BMW provides free maintence under warranty)

Granted I think these new turbo engines will hold together fine for 100k, but what about at 150k, 200k? Are you going to be looking at costly repair bills like a new turbo, new engine because the turbo flew apart and put trash into the motor, leaky intercooler, cracked turbo exhaust manifold, bad blow off valve, engine grenading because of a bad wastegate, etc, etc etc There are A TON more parts to fail in a turbocharged engine.

 

[drewsdeville]

^Reliability through simplicity? Then drive a go-cart with a one lung Briggs. Less parts to fail. Think of all of those extra parts to fail on your 6cyl - it's 6 times more likely to grenade!

Based on that logic, the go-cart will go millions of miles further than any car, right?

 

[70cougar]

But it's not just more parts. It's turbo's spinning up to 150,000 rpm and little 4 cylinders (as in the ATS) running higher rpm under load more often than the 6 or 8's they replace. Right?

Time will tell.

 

[Hoosier Daddy]

Based on that logic, the go-cart will go millions of miles further than any car, right?

I know you are talking about a Briggs, but serious kart engines have to be rebuilt every event where the race distances are in single digit miles. But they are putting out more power per displacement than Formula One engines that are good for 10 hours or more.

 

[thebigjimsho]

But it's not just more parts. It's turbo's spinning up to 150,000 rpm and little 4 cylinders (as in the ATS) running higher rpm under load more often than the 6 or 8's they replace. Right?

Time will tell.

I suppose you never have been on a plane.