America and big engines

[Zuhaib]

Interesting thread, so I thought i will chime in. A lot of topics going on, from diesel in the US to the question about why US need large displacement engines and why are home made engines are so low powered for there displacement.

On the question on diesel in the US, you have to remember that the largest market in the US for cars, CA, DOES NOT ALLOW FOR DIESEL PASSENGER CAR. CA is the lead market for most of the automakers (remember Toyota launched the Scion in CA first as a test market) and I bet a lot of companies dont want to import a car where you cant sell it in the largest market.

And as for what thedguy said, I think you are dead on for the most part. Pushrod is a bit dated, but can produce the power needed if tuned. I have a Harley Davidson which is pushrod motor and with a little work, they can get over 100hp. I think Over head cams are better, they can be tuned much more, produce more power and be more efficient. But it all depends on what you can do about it. Even Harley is now moving to over head cams, with the V-Rod Motor.

 

[Punisher Bass]

It should be noted that Harley's Revolution engine (aka V Rod engine) was designed and developed by Porsche.

 

[nomix]

Well, even if the 33 million in California aren't alloved to drive diesel cars, there's still a quite serious 270 million who are alloved to drive diesels.

But I get the point, when 10 % of the market goes away, that would make you cry if you're selling diesels in the US, but still.

I have more faith in the earlier explenation that it's because people in America have poor experiences with diesels in the past.

 

[Vette Boss]

Americans have tried making smaller displacement engines in the past, but it always ends up not being that good. Cadillac tried to mimic Jaguar's 4.2L supercharged V8 with a 4.4L supercharged V8, but the noise was all wrong and the gearbox they designed for it was stupid.

I think given enough time, America can thwart its reputation for only being able to make big engines. GM seems to be trying, but they haven't been at it long enough to get it just right yet.

And nomix is right, America had a bad experience with diesels in the 80s. GM and others as well, had a go at making diesel engined cars, they didn't know what they were doing, and made a stink of it. We just seem to have an aversion towards diesel, unless it's in some industrial equipment or big trucks. Any company would have a hard time selling an diesel passenger car to a yank.

 

[jetsetter]

Cadillac tried to mimic Jaguar's 4.2L supercharged V8 with a 4.4L supercharged V8

I wouldn't say they were trying to mimic anyone with the 4.4L supercharged Northstar.

A 4.4 L (4371 cc/266 in?) supercharged Northstar is used in the 2006 Cadillac STS-V and Cadillac XLR-V. The bore was reduced for increased strength. Variable valve timing is used on both the intake and exhaust sides. The STS-V engine produces 469 hp (350 kW) at 6400 rpm and 439 ft?lbf (595 N?m) at 3900 rpm with 9.0:1 compression and the XLR-V engine produces 443 hp (330 kW) at 6400 rpm and 414 ft?lbf (561 N?m) at 3900 rpm .

 

[Vette Boss]

I wouldn't say they were trying to mimic anyone with the 4.4L supercharged Northstar.

You're right that the engines didn't share design similarities, it was only closer in size and output to the 4.2L supercharged V8. Much closer than anything else in the market. Up until then, no-one else offered anything closer to size and output. I'm sure GM used the Jaguar engine for inspiration, it is a magnificent engine after all.

 

[jetsetter]

The Northstar series of engines is actually quite a bit older than the Jaguar AJ-V8 series of engines.

 

[thedguy]

You're right that the engines didn't share design similarities, it was only closer in size and output to the 4.2L supercharged V8. Much closer than anything else in the market. Up until then, no-one else offered anything closer to size and output. I'm sure GM used the Jaguar engine for inspiration, it is a magnificent engine after all.

Or more likely it's because GM wanted their flagship brand to use it's "flagship" engine, but needed more performance, so they shrunk the bore (for a stronger block) and then supercharged it.

Though why they won't use the engine in the next CTS-V is beyond me.

 

[British_Rover]

The Northstar series of engines is actually quite a bit older than the Jaguar AJ-V8 series of engines.

He is right the Northstar came out in the early 90s and the AJ-V8 launched in 1997 with the new XK.

Jag did have a supercharged version of the AJ-V8 well before Caddy did.

Side note on diesels...

The problem with California is that several states use their emission guidelines. If you can't sell a car in Cali you can't sell it in four other states as well.

One of those states is New York which is AFIK the fourth largest market for new cars in the US.

The largest market is California and the second is Florida. I think New Jersey is the Third largest but it might be NY.

 

[thedguy]

He is right the Northstar came out in the early 90s and the AJ-V8 launched in 1997 with the new XK.

Jag did have a supercharged version of the AJ-V8 well before Caddy did.

I would expect Jag to have a supercharged Jag v8 before GM did . Considering Jaguar dropped their big displacement v12 engines, and their lack of cash, I can see why they had a supercharged v8 before Caddy did. With that being said, one can't say Cadillac copied the Jag setup. GM has been putting superchargers/Turbochargers on engines decades before Jag.

Side note on diesels...

The problem with California is that several states use their emission guidelines. If you can't sell a car in Cali you can't sell it in four other states as well.

One of those states is New York which is AFIK the fourth largest market for new cars in the US.

The largest market is California and the second is Florida. I think New Jersey is the Third largest but it might be NY.

And this is the thing people don't realize. I once read that cars are designed for California and Florida, with the rest of the country taken into account (like making said cars work fine in cold weather). Take those states out of the equation, and the US market all of a sudden becomes to small to spend the money on.

 

[YF19pilot]

I would expect Jag to have a supercharged Jag v8 before GM did . Considering Jaguar dropped their big displacement v12 engines, and their lack of cash, I can see why they had a supercharged v8 before Caddy did. With that being said, one can't say Cadillac copied the Jag setup. GM has been putting superchargers/Turbochargers on engines decades before Jag.



And this is the thing people don't realize. I once read that cars are designed for California and Florida, with the rest of the country taken into account (like making said cars work fine in cold weather). Take those states out of the equation, and the US market all of a sudden becomes to small to spend the money on.

I always thought it was just California Emissions vehicles, and everyone else. Didn't think Florida was that important to automotive sales. The only difference I ever knew of was the emissions, and Northern states maybe getting AWD versions of cars we can only get with two wheel drive here in florida.

 

[British_Rover]

^^^ Florida doesn't use Cali emissions but California, Maine, Massachusetts, New York or Vermont do.

That is a significant part of the US car market.

 

[bigsweezey]

Just california alone runs the car market...not even including the other states. It's cheaper to design one car that fits all the EPA regs, ect. Than to design one car for this part of the US, and one for cali and the rest.

 

[janstett]

It drives me nuts!

I have a buddy with a WS6 5.7litre V8 only producing 350HP.. and thats with ram air and his exaust or whatever ..

WTF is that?! Seriously..

The LS1s are notoriously underrated. It's really closer to 400 hp at the flywheel.

But you think that's bad? Dude, you drive a front wheel drive nose-heavy Volkswagen!

Seriously, let me take back the car bashing, I'm sorry about that part, it's just preferences. That car is heavy and can use some help on the braking but it handles OK and it is fast, they're good candidates for road racing.

My a4 when it was stock was only 170hp, out of a 1.8 litre 4 banger.

Makes no sense.

And thats why i love european cars.

OK, I have to rant a little bit, nothing personal.

I don't care about Horsepower per liter. I don't give a damn. I care about horsepower per pound of car you have to lug around.

Is it so wrong to have a 5.7 liter engine instead of a 1.8 liter engine? Maybe I'm a crude American, but I look at it this way:

input: weight of motor, fuel economy (mpg)
output: horspower/torque (total, not per liter)

I don't care what goes on inside the black box -- displacement, pushrods, dual overhead cams, vTec, turbo, supercharger, baking soda, rubber bands -- nice but academic at the end of the day.

I generally like European cars (and I own a Porsche 944 Turbo), but I will never, ever own an Audi. They start with wrong wheel drive and they are nose heavy, and get worse from there. There's a reason you don't see very many everyday Audis at track days until you get up into the S4 territory.

Then let's talk about the European V8s making the rounds in the S-class, et al.

I might break my no-wrong-wheel-drive rule for a Mini Cooper. But Audi just leaves me cold because they start with the wrong design philosophy for an enthusiast and they commit the cardinal sin of being heavy, and in inopportunte places on top of that.

 

[thedguy]

I might break my no-wrong-wheel-drive rule for a Mini Cooper. But Audi just leaves me cold because they start with the wrong design philosophy for an enthusiast and they commit the cardinal sin of being heavy, and in inopportunte places on top of that.

Didn't you promise us some dyno sheets of your Porsche vs the Trans am? I'm still waiting!!!!! *crosses arms, taps feet*

You know I honestly thing the Germans seem to like to start with some retarded, ass backwards idea, and engineer around the problem. Examples being Porsche's refusal to move their engines forward the rear axle, and Audi insisting upon doing similar on the other end of the caf. Mercedes likes to fight the laws of physics (heavy ass boats), BMW is following them, but also insisting upon I6's, but I don't have a problem with that... I like their I6's.

Of course Ford sticks with solid axles in the rear... but doesn't engineer a damn thing to compesate for it .

 

[Zuhaib]

It drives me nuts!

I have a buddy with a WS6 5.7litre V8 only producing 350HP.. and thats with ram air and his exaust or whatever ..

WTF is that?! Seriously..

Not only is it ugly but its slow,useless and has no proper braking or handling characteristics that a car of that magnitude should have.Oh and it cant even put the power down correctly. And yet, it gets a "southern salute".

That car is a WASTE and a shame.. This is exactly why i hate american cars.

On the other hand ..

My a4 when it was stock was only 170hp, out of a 1.8 litre 4 banger.

Makes no sense.

And thats why i love european cars.

You do know that 1.8 is a 1.8T, that is T for Turbo. In that case, pushing 100hp/l is not that hard (which in the A4 it did not, but in the MkIV Golf's it did). Hell my 2.0T is 200hp, and with an APR chip will break the 100hp/l but again, its turbocharged so i can push more boost till the motors blows.
And you complain about a 5.7 making 350hp, actually can you tell me a European car that produces 300hp? Well Merc had to use a 5.0 V8 to produce 300hp, and right now are using a 5.5l to make 382 HP. BMW used a 4.4l to produce 290hp. Jag with its 4.2l producing 290hp.
And the cars a mentioned, new, would be a lot more then your friends.

Also this tread is bring out people smashing on 4 Bangers, saying they can be for the long haul and etc. In truth my GTI is my first 4 banger so i was also a V6+ man, but, the amount of tq some of these new 4 Bangers with turbo (ie the GTI) they make for great high way cars. Doing 80mph @ 3000rpms is not bad, my old B5 V6 Passat would that (tho it was a 5 Speed vs the 6 speed in the GTI) I have more power then needed to over take. Yeah when I take the merc out, there is something about getting up to highway speeds and over them without having to pass 3000rpm's, but, i dont cry now when i go to the fuel pump.

 

[YF19pilot]

^^^ Florida doesn't use Cali emissions but California, Maine, Massachusetts, New York or Vermont do.

That is a significant part of the US car market.

Gee, you'd think that living and driving in Florida I'd know that

I know we don't use Cali emissions here, we've even stopped having vehicle inspections something like 5 years before I got my liscense. Florida is also one of the easiest states to register kit cars, iirc. I was just saying that Florida being the #2 car market in the US was a bit surprising. I'd figure that the New England area or Texas would be #2.

 

[thedguy]

actually can you tell me a European car that produces 300hp? And the cars a mentioned, new, would be a lot more then your friends.

I'm sure someone will come on here and begin to post about all the top spec engines from the various manufacturers in europe and Japan, and completely ignore price.

Also this tread is bring out people smashing on 4 Bangers, saying they can be for the long haul and etc. In truth my GTI is my first 4 banger so i was also a V6+ man, but, the amount of tq some of these new 4 Bangers with turbo (ie the GTI) they make for great high way cars. Doing 80mph @ 3000rpms is not bad, my old B5 V6 Passat would that (tho it was a 5 Speed vs the 6 speed in the GTI) I have more power then needed to over take. Yeah when I take the merc out, there is something about getting up to highway speeds and over them without having to pass 3000rpm's, but, i dont cry now when i go to the fuel pump.

This is why I'm an advocate of smaller turbo engines. They've just been figured out. Modern 4's are smooth, quiet, low on fuel consumption, but can still make the power one craves. It's funny how GM/Chrysler are both working out Displacement on demand technologies, and if one thinks about it, a turbo is nothing more than displacement on demand, with more efficiency at the cost of added weight.

I believe it was earlier in this thread I made mention of my dads old Honda accord, that was probably the quietest and smoothest car we've owned, the exception being the Toyota Cressida. All of our Camaro's and Buick's, be it v6 or v8 were a bit noiser on the highways at speed.

 

[RUU-CHAMA]

This is why I'm an advocate of smaller turbo engines. They've just been figured out. Modern 4's are smooth, quiet, low on fuel consumption, but can still make the power one craves. It's funny how GM/Chrysler are both working out Displacement on demand technologies, and if one thinks about it, a turbo is nothing more than displacement on demand, with more efficiency at the cost of added weight.

But you wouldn't have that nice v8 burble (unless you rig up an external sound system with a cd to 'emulate' the noise of a v8 on your Geo Metro).

 

[nomix]

You mean like Dodge did with the Caliber?