America and big engines

[pontus]

Something I never understood about the US is why all their cars have such big and powerful engines, certainly when compared to their low speed limits.

For example : Why is the slowest engine in an American VW Jetta a 2.5 150BHP and in Europe it is a 1.6 102BHP? Especially because in Europe people drive faster then in US, because of higher speed limits. And the 1.6 goes fine, even with 5 people and luggage you can easily keep up with traffic. I don't get it...

[BlitzR]

no no no no no. Please don't. Feels like another youngwarrior moment coming on.
I'm sorry but there seems to be all these annoying little threads around right now.

[BlaRo]

This is why. Try dodging 18-wheelers during rush hour traffic in anything less than 120hp; it's not only terrifying but downright dangerous for everybody involved. You could say the typical American is too stupid to choose a small engine because he wants a penis enlargement regardless of sex, but mostly it's because we've grown up on these 20-lane freeways since the early 40s. We know we'd rather be blazing across the country in something smooth and comfortable with a low-revving V8 then straining the hell out of a 1.2 liter penalty box.

Manufacturers know this, that's why they know it's not cost-effective to bring over the smaller engine when there's a similarly larger one for almost the same price. Why single us out too? What, Mercedes doesn't sell 604hp SL's and CL's in Europe either? I doubt everybody there rolls around in 1.3 liter Hyundai Getzes either.

I'd go on, but this thread is going to turn into a shitslinging crapfest soon anyway. Americans are dumb, they're wasteful, they should all ride mules instead of driving Suburbans, etc. guns, george bush, lolspringz, etc.

[chaos386]

America is large and open, so Americans are used to large and open things. Large houses, large roads, large cars, etc. Large cars need large engines. Also, the average American has to drive further than the average European to get anywhere, which means more time spent on the motorway. Even if the speed limits are lower in some areas, motorway driving is always less stressful with a larger, more powerful engine.

[RUU-CHAMA]

Pontus should try to drive from Florida to L.A. in a Chevrolet Matiz (make sure you have great health insurance first).

[donkapone]

ok, but to quote Jeremy "how do they get such a small amount of horsepower from an engine?"

[I<3myV8]

Originally Posted by pontus

Something I never understood about the US is why all their cars have such big and powerful engines, certainly when compared to their low speed limits.

For example : Why is the slowest engine in an American VW Jetta a 2.5 150BHP and in Europe it is a 1.6 102BHP? Especially because in Europe people drive faster then in US, because of higher speed limits. And the 1.6 goes fine, even with 5 people and luggage you can easily keep up with traffic. I don't get it...

Are you in the GNAA?

[chaos386]

Originally Posted by donkapone

ok, but to quote Jeremy "how do they get such a small amount of horsepower from an engine?"

No.

[nomix]

Originally Posted by donkapone

ok, but to quote Jeremy "how do they get such a small amount of horsepower from an engine?"

Even if the LS7 weighs less than the iron block 2 litre in the MX-5.

Further, they believe in not over engineering their engines, to be honest, and I like to bully America for their twenty litre V8s with 3 bhp, it does make for a more reliable proposition.

And it's not like there's that big a difference anymore, shure, during the late 70s and 80s, it was an issue, American engines were big, weighed more than the moon and produced as much power as a E30 325i. That was an issue. But today, that's not a real issue.

And if we are to rant on the Americans, why don't we rant on ourself, Jaguar, why doesn't your 4.2 litre produce 504 bhp, not 390? If Honda can get 240bhp from their 2-litre, why can't you get 504 bhp from your 4.2? And BMW, why doesn't your 5-litre V10 in the M5 and M6 produce 600 bhp, not 500?

Well, it's pointless arguing seriously about that.

Yank engines have allways been big, and they'll probably stay that way.

[Xeon SX]

I kinda agree that Americans get oversized egines but can't make a stong point here as I don't live there. So I guess pontus, just let it go.

[Blind_Io]

Originally Posted by donkapone

ok, but to quote Jeremy "how do they get such a small amount of horsepower from an engine?"

1 hp = 33,000 ft·pound-force·min^−1

Calculate the equivalent horsepower for torque:


Can you tune a tiny engine to produce more hp? Yes. Will the engine last very long under those increased stresses? Generally not, unless you use some more exotic alloys and such. American engines are using these alloys too, but by making lower reving V8s with masses of torque they put less strain on the engine.

Example:
My last car, a Jeep Cherokee (XJ) had a 4.0L I6. A large engine by European standards. The car was not particularly fast, but it produced 80% of it's torque at idle. That means that without reving the engine at all my Jeep could do more work than a higher hp small-displacement 4 cyl.

Imagine the engine is trying to crank a basket up a shaft (the same job horses were doing that resulted in the term horsepower). Now, without reving the engine start putting load in the basket. How much weight would you get to before the 4 cyl stalled? That 4.0L would still be idling away and cranking that basket up the shaft.

The different engines have different strengths. That 4 cyl may be light, but you have to rev it up to get much out of it. Those big V8s can do most their work at very low RPM. Because they tend to do work at the low end, they cause less strain on components.

At least this is my understanding, if someone with more technical knowledge sees an error, please correct me.

[GraemeH]

I think it's just a matter of suiting the territory. A few reasons come to mind;

-Compared to Europe, American driving is done with automagic gearboxes and is cruising at low revs which suits the bigger lazier engines

-In Europe, people that aren't car enthusiasts couldn't care less if they have a 1 litre or a 6 litre, whereas in America i think generally even people that aren't car enthusiasts and don't buy for performance, still choose engines based on displacement and power

-Fuel. In the UK at least I pay a little more than twice what an American would at the pump, so why not indulge in a bigger engine over there? Whereas we have to consider economy, and that's not even getting into the UKs tax on engine displacement.

There's no more or less correct way, just a matter of suiting the purpose.

[thedguy]

We don't have as many "large engines" as you think. We used to have a shit-ton of 1.3 liter and 1 liter Geo/Suzuki cars. Those are no longer made.

Plenty of 1.5 -1.8L Honda/Toyota/Nissan cars were sold here. Hell in my house hold we have 4 vehicles. 1 is a 2.4 liter pick-up made by Toyota, a 1.8 liter BMW, and a 1.6 made by nissan. The only big engine is the commercial truck my dad drives for a living.

Most cars running around use 2.0-2.4 liter Ecotec's, whatever Fords Zetec/Duratecs are, and a good amount of 3.1-3.8 liter v6's. We just don't have the super small cars here. Only recently did we get a Toyota Yaris/Honda Fit/Nissan (whatever it's called). Those all have sub 2 liter engines. Most of the Scion line, except the tC, use 1.5 engines. And interesting enough, I hear those cars are all quite hard to keep on the lots.

Most of the big engines are in the SUV's, other than the mustang and vette there was a big drop off in cars with big engines in the US for the past 5 years. SUV's and trucks were/are the only place to find the Big engines. And if you look at US fuel economy ratings, the big engined trucks get better fuel economy than the smaller ones. And example is the Ford explorer, the 4.0 v6 gets piss poor mileage compared to the 5.0 v8. Toyota's 4 cylinder SUV's got junk mileage compared to the larger engined equivalents from GM or Ford.

Last time I looked (about a year ago) roughly 50% of the US market was still buying SUV's and trucks.

And it's not like there's that big a difference anymore, sure, during the late 70s and 80s, it was an issue, American engines were big, weighed more than the moon and produced as much power as a E30 325i. That was an issue. But today, that's not a real issue

QFT. The big three didn't want to spend a whole lot engineering now engines for the smog area (especially the larger ones) so they tacked a bunch of smog equipment on and made them weak on power.

Whenever they did seem to try something small and powerful, it backfired. The Vega engine was a weak design (even the cosworth tuned version only belted out 100hp from 2 liters, and in race trim broke blocks at 270hp). While Ford sold quite a few turbo 2.4's in the 80's, people still rather they had the 5.0 v8. Some years of the 80's Mustang had the option of either. Dodge was the only one who did well with small turbo engines, and eventually they gave up and now are slowly going back.

In Europe, people that aren't car enthusiasts couldn't care less if they have a 1 litre or a 6 litre, whereas in America i think generally even people that aren't car enthusiasts and don't buy for performance, still choose engines based on displacement and power

Many people here seem to think they need the more powerful cars, they always say "the smaller one was just to weak" but yet they always drive around like they are using the small engine to save gas. With that being said, I think I recall reading that with cars like the 300C, even though Chrysler pushed "That got a Hemi?" something like 70% of them have v6's in them (the smallest engine option).


Oh and I forgot to mention one other thing. GM/Ford/Chysler are at this point, cheap car makers. They can't afford to spend the money on engines like the Germans. GM keeps it's engine costs down by using the same engine architecture in a large number of vehicles. The same basic engine that is in the Corvette is also in a shit load of GM trucks. Displacement is an easy and INEXPENSIVE way to make hp. GM is not BMW or Mercedes, so to compare their numbers is unfair. The Germans don't seem to consider cost when designing a high performance engine, GM just warms over what they already mass produce and shoves it in a lighter vehicle. Thats what a muscle car is.

[jayhawk]

Horsepower and engine displacement doesnt mean a hill of beans to Joe Consumer who only wants to take off quickly at stoplights and freeway on ramps. Horsepower doesnt mean shit without torque.

We like it big here. We have the room stretch out, so why not? What is irritating is when Europeans get on their high minded horse and admonish the United States for being so bold and daring as to NOT tax citizens for their engine displacement, for having eight lane Interstates, and to have low horsepower / high torque engines.

Oh, the humanity!

You know what, Pontus? How about you scrounge together some money and visit these United States instead of getting your disinformation from biased opinions.


Blah!!

[No Boss]

Originally Posted by BlitzR

no no no no no. Please don't. Feels like another youngwarrior moment.

Haha, I couldn't get through anything else in this thread after seeing that.

[vanMould]

Nice bonfire you've got going on here! Here, I have a bucket of petrol for you:
http://www.241computers.com/ford/Con...s20-30-38.html

[thedguy]

Originally Posted by BlaRo

This is why. Try dodging 18-wheelers during rush hour traffic in anything less than 120hp; it's not only terrifying but downright dangerous for everybody involved. You could say the typical American is too stupid to choose a small engine because he wants a penis enlargement regardless of sex, but mostly it's because we've grown up on these 20-lane freeways since the early 40s. We know we'd rather be blazing across the country in something smooth and comfortable with a low-revving V8 then straining the hell out of a 1.2 liter penalty box.

My 67 hp of 1.5 liter fury does quite well and we only have 2 lane (each way) interstates out my way. Granted it also only weighs in at 2300lbs and "belts out" over 90lbs-ft.

The problem is everyone still thinks "I need hp." The funny thing is, people get in these high strung, high hp small engines and go "god this thing is weak." So they buy the v8 with the same power but boat loads more torque. If they knew just needed the smaller engine built for torque rather than HP, things would be better. The funny thing about that is the Celica/Celica GT-S. More people bought the base 130hp engine not just cause it was cheaper, but it felt faster, had better throttle response than the 180hp screamer, why? Because it had loads more bottom and mid range torque.

What the car companies need to start pushing is smaller turbo charged engines. Look at Volvo and VW's engines and they are quite responsive and have a wide torque range, just what you want in a freeway cruiser. And they have the benefit of requiring less fuel at idle, arguably lighter than the v8's (SR20's can get pretty heavy when you start adding intercoolers and the like), and if you think about it, a turbo motor is just displacement on demand, without the friction/drag of the current cylinder deactivation systems.

[otispunkmeyer]

well i would say, although i wouldnt always argue the power point because lets face it some of those big american engines produce woeful amounts of power, but big v8s provide lots of torque and they are very smooth

just what you want for cruising on those insanely long roads.... id imagine a 1.6 whirring away at 3000rpm-4000rpm for a few hundred miles would do your nut. much more desirable to have a bearly beating V8 pushing you along at 60-70mph basically idling.

then when something untoward does happen, the torque is there to get you out.

next, take alook at what we tow in europe... an abbey caravan or a small trailer for garden rubbish.

when you go to america..look at the size of their caravans.. 35ft long or more, they tow much bigger swag than we do.

also there is no replacement for displacement and the V8 really in ingrained in americas history, its their engine that some would argue they do best, its something for a young man to aspire too...a burbly V8 that displaces a couple of liters, sounds like it would eat your children and that would make all the brash smoke and noise that you could want.

[un-dee]

Its because their petrol is wayyy cheaper than ours. And that is the one and only reason.

[Mopar Man]

The reason for the most part why, for example, the 8.1L Vortec V8 in my old Chevy Avalanche got only around 325hp is because its a Chevy, it was a great truck, don't get me wrong, but with our American cars across the board our larger V8's are underpowered, partly to save fuel, partly because we love the sound, and partly because if you got a V8 with insane power it'll cost an arm and a leg, and that's not what America's all about.