Engine efficiency comparison
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 14 of 41

Thread:
Engine efficiency comparison

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,344

    Default Engine efficiency comparison

    Ok...Some back story; EVERYONE wants to use horsepower-per-liter as a reference of engine efficiency.....I try to point out to certain people that there are basically no cars that can beat the Vette/Camaro in REAL efficiency...Basically performance vs Fuel mileage....Why would you care how big the internal displacement is if you have; More power + Better MPG + Smaller external measurements + lighter weight.....People tend to get mad but no one has ever come up with a better Performance/MPG vehicle than the Vette/Camaro.....A functional comparison is that R&T magazine tested the new Camaro SS vs the Mustang GT and the Camaro was faster 0-60 and 1/4 (By 1/2 second) while getting 2-3 better MPG (Vehicle weight was within 50 lbs).....(Disclaimer; I WAS a Ford man in HS and my CVX-20 jet has a 460 in it....I am by no means anti-Ford....But I am a bit anti-4 valve!)

    Oh yeah; A lot of people like to claim that GM is "continuing with a crap-old-style PR engine because they don't want to spend the money or have the technology"...I try to tell them that GM did an analysis and concluded that the PR engine was actually better in the varied situations it was going to be in and actually beat the 4 valve engine everywhere that mattered......But then they want to lynch me AND set fire to me at the same time......

    Here is my interesting little discovery;

    The 2014 normally-aspirated Formula 1 engines displaced 2.4L and were "limited" to 18,000 rpm(!!!)....There were several different manufacturers, but the basic horsepower estimate was 750......


    I remember a Hot Rod Magazine article about an engine being built by DNE for a Jet drag boat.....565 CI (+ 9.26L) that generated 1000 horsepower at 6000 rpm, and then went on to hit a total of 1050 a few hundred rpm higher.


    I did the calculation for engine efficiency...I do not believe in comparing STATIC displacement....An engine displacing 3L turning 6000 rpm is (Basically) pumping the same amount of air as a 6L turning 3000- I instead believe in looking at air being processed thru the engine to generate the horsepower......so I have got in the habit of doing this calculation;


    Displacement(In Liters) X RPM (At which the max HP is generated) divided by Horsepower...This gives you the amount of air that has to be processed thru the engine to generate a single horsepower. I don't usually go "All the way" and divide by 2 for a 4 stroke engine.....All of my numbers are for the above simple calculation and for "Total accuracy" need to be divided by 2.....


    2014 Formula 1 engine; 2.4 (L) X 18,000 (RPM) = 43,200 divided by 750 (HP) = 57.6 (L per HP per minute(x 2)


    2003-5 Jet Drag boat engine; 9.26 (L) X 6000 (RPM) = 55,560 Divided by 1000 (HP) = 55.56 (L per HP per minute(x 2)





    This shows that the "Clunky old pushrod engine" actually BEATS the super high-tech, mega-dollar Formula 1 engines at efficiency....Un-freaking believable!!!


    I do this for any engine I look at in the magazines; Ferraris, Astons, Corvettes, Mustangs, Camaros...even Hondas. It only works for Normally-aspirated engines but, interestingly, most 4 valve engines come in around 75 and the LT1 GM engine comes in at aprox' 81.....The reason the Vette still gets better fuel economy is that it can run leaner because of the "Quench" combustion chamber.....

  2. Remove Advertisements
    PerformanceBoats.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    Village Idiot fc-Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Peoria, AZ
    Posts
    3,268

    Default

    It is fun to let our minds ponder about different theories and ideas about engines. I got a kick out of your expiation and logic. Weather or not I follow or agree is second to the fact that your view and opinion are yours and cannot be taken away.

    It makes me think how the .9L engine in the Turbo Sprint would stack up?

    Paul

    Quote Originally Posted by cvxjet View Post
    Ok...Some back story; EVERYONE wants to use horsepower-per-liter as a reference of engine efficiency.....I try to point out to certain people that there are basically no cars that can beat the Vette/Camaro in REAL efficiency...Basically performance vs Fuel mileage....Why would you care how big the internal displacement is if you have; More power + Better MPG + Smaller external measurements + lighter weight.....People tend to get mad but no one has ever come up with a better Performance/MPG vehicle than the Vette/Camaro.....A functional comparison is that R&T magazine tested the new Camaro SS vs the Mustang GT and the Camaro was faster 0-60 and 1/4 (By 1/2 second) while getting 2-3 better MPG (Vehicle weight was within 50 lbs).....(Disclaimer; I WAS a Ford man in HS and my CVX-20 jet has a 460 in it....I am by no means anti-Ford....But I am a bit anti-4 valve!)

    Oh yeah; A lot of people like to claim that GM is "continuing with a crap-old-style PR engine because they don't want to spend the money or have the technology"...I try to tell them that GM did an analysis and concluded that the PR engine was actually better in the varied situations it was going to be in and actually beat the 4 valve engine everywhere that mattered......But then they want to lynch me AND set fire to me at the same time......

    Here is my interesting little discovery;

    The 2014 normally-aspirated Formula 1 engines displaced 2.4L and were "limited" to 18,000 rpm(!!!)....There were several different manufacturers, but the basic horsepower estimate was 750......


    I remember a Hot Rod Magazine article about an engine being built by DNE for a Jet drag boat.....565 CI (+ 9.26L) that generated 1000 horsepower at 6000 rpm, and then went on to hit a total of 1050 a few hundred rpm higher.


    I did the calculation for engine efficiency...I do not believe in comparing STATIC displacement....An engine displacing 3L turning 6000 rpm is (Basically) pumping the same amount of air as a 6L turning 3000- I instead believe in looking at air being processed thru the engine to generate the horsepower......so I have got in the habit of doing this calculation;


    Displacement(In Liters) X RPM (At which the max HP is generated) divided by Horsepower...This gives you the amount of air that has to be processed thru the engine to generate a single horsepower. I don't usually go "All the way" and divide by 2 for a 4 stroke engine.....All of my numbers are for the above simple calculation and for "Total accuracy" need to be divided by 2.....


    2014 Formula 1 engine; 2.4 (L) X 18,000 (RPM) = 43,200 divided by 750 (HP) = 57.6 (L per HP per minute(x 2)


    2003-5 Jet Drag boat engine; 9.26 (L) X 6000 (RPM) = 55,560 Divided by 1000 (HP) = 55.56 (L per HP per minute(x 2)





    This shows that the "Clunky old pushrod engine" actually BEATS the super high-tech, mega-dollar Formula 1 engines at efficiency....Un-freaking believable!!!


    I do this for any engine I look at in the magazines; Ferraris, Astons, Corvettes, Mustangs, Camaros...even Hondas. It only works for Normally-aspirated engines but, interestingly, most 4 valve engines come in around 75 and the LT1 GM engine comes in at aprox' 81.....The reason the Vette still gets better fuel economy is that it can run leaner because of the "Quench" combustion chamber.....

  4. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,344

    Default

    I'd really enjoy finding a way to compare t/s-charged engines to NA engines with this formula.....Maybe how many "atmospheres" the engine is running in?....But when I try to figure it out my mind goes blank and I lose my train of thought......

  5. Remove Advertisements
    PerformanceBoats.com
    Advertisements
     

  6. #4
    LP-25.com Infomaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    New Port Richey, FL
    Posts
    16,853

    Default

    Bsfc
    If For Some Reason I Do Something Worthy Of Recognition. God Provided The Ability And Deserves The Credit.


    QE 439 Twin Turbo

  7. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,344

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Infomaniac View Post
    Bsfc

    That is a proper way to do it-but you don't have any access to that info on the engines in most magazines/vehicles.....Interestingly, 4 valve engines will actually process MORE air(Than seen in my calculation) because there is less drag on the air entering the chamber thru the multiple valves....

  8. #6
    LP-25.com Infomaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    New Port Richey, FL
    Posts
    16,853

    Default

    Ask them for it lol.

    it's all interesting stuff
    If For Some Reason I Do Something Worthy Of Recognition. God Provided The Ability And Deserves The Credit.


    QE 439 Twin Turbo

  9. #7
    Village Idiot fc-Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Peoria, AZ
    Posts
    3,268

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Infomaniac View Post
    Bsfc
    And BSAC


    Paul

  10. #8
    Already miss the 310/562 2manymustangs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    13,551

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cvxjet View Post
    That is a proper way to do it-but you don't have any access to that info on the engines in most magazines/vehicles.....Interestingly, 4 valve engines will actually process MORE air(Than seen in my calculation) because there is less drag on the air entering the chamber thru the multiple valves....
    One of the additional added benefits to quad valve/three valve engines is the new "charge motion control system/variable length intake manifold"...... I'm sure that this isn't being used on the engines you are making an example out of BUT it is greatly used in production engines and has a major benefit to torque/emissions/efficiency across the RPM range....
    Pat Eason, the voice of reason...

  11. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,344

    Default

    The 3.9L V6 in my van has a variable-length intake manifold......I don't know if we will ever make it there, but electrically actuated, computer controlled valves with infinitely adjustable duration/lift will be the ultimate set-up...."Tractor" cam from 1000-2000, "RV" cam from 2000-4000, "typical" cam from 4000-6000, and "hot" cam from 6000-8000....And fully variable displacement.....maybe a 3L with 400 Lb/ft from 1500-6000, and 400-500 hp from 3000-8000...and say in a 3000 lb Camaro, gets 30MPG+ around town and 50+ on the highway.....

  12. #10
    Ain't Right Racin piston in the wind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Sapulpa ok
    Posts
    1,706

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cvxjet View Post
    Ok...Some back story; EVERYONE wants to use horsepower-per-liter as a reference of engine efficiency.....I try to point out to certain people that there are basically no cars that can beat the Vette/Camaro in REAL efficiency...Basically performance vs Fuel mileage....Why would you care how big the internal displacement is if you have; More power + Better MPG + Smaller external measurements + lighter weight.....People tend to get mad but no one has ever come up with a better Performance/MPG vehicle than the Vette/Camaro.....A functional comparison is that R&T magazine tested the new Camaro SS vs the Mustang GT and the Camaro was faster 0-60 and 1/4 (By 1/2 second) while getting 2-3 better MPG (Vehicle weight was within 50 lbs).....(Disclaimer; I WAS a Ford man in HS and my CVX-20 jet has a 460 in it....I am by no means anti-Ford....But I am a bit anti-4 valve!)

    Oh yeah; A lot of people like to claim that GM is "continuing with a crap-old-style PR engine because they don't want to spend the money or have the technology"...I try to tell them that GM did an analysis and concluded that the PR engine was actually better in the varied situations it was going to be in and actually beat the 4 valve engine everywhere that mattered......But then they want to lynch me AND set fire to me at the same time......

    Here is my interesting little discovery;

    The 2014 normally-aspirated Formula 1 engines displaced 2.4L and were "limited" to 18,000 rpm(!!!)....There were several different manufacturers, but the basic horsepower estimate was 750......


    I remember a Hot Rod Magazine article about an engine being built by DNE for a Jet drag boat.....565 CI (+ 9.26L) that generated 1000 horsepower at 6000 rpm, and then went on to hit a total of 1050 a few hundred rpm higher.


    I did the calculation for engine efficiency...I do not believe in comparing STATIC displacement....An engine displacing 3L turning 6000 rpm is (Basically) pumping the same amount of air as a 6L turning 3000- I instead believe in looking at air being processed thru the engine to generate the horsepower......so I have got in the habit of doing this calculation;


    Displacement(In Liters) X RPM (At which the max HP is generated) divided by Horsepower...This gives you the amount of air that has to be processed thru the engine to generate a single horsepower. I don't usually go "All the way" and divide by 2 for a 4 stroke engine.....All of my numbers are for the above simple calculation and for "Total accuracy" need to be divided by 2.....


    2014 Formula 1 engine; 2.4 (L) X 18,000 (RPM) = 43,200 divided by 750 (HP) = 57.6 (L per HP per minute(x 2)


    2003-5 Jet Drag boat engine; 9.26 (L) X 6000 (RPM) = 55,560 Divided by 1000 (HP) = 55.56 (L per HP per minute(x 2)





    This shows that the "Clunky old pushrod engine" actually BEATS the super high-tech, mega-dollar Formula 1 engines at efficiency....Un-freaking believable!!!


    I do this for any engine I look at in the magazines; Ferraris, Astons, Corvettes, Mustangs, Camaros...even Hondas. It only works for Normally-aspirated engines but, interestingly, most 4 valve engines come in around 75 and the LT1 GM engine comes in at aprox' 81.....The reason the Vette still gets better fuel economy is that it can run leaner because of the "Quench" combustion chamber.....
    Nicely done but you must weigh the engines to get a true measurement. I think a 350 chevy 4 valve ohc deal would be awesome if the cams were done correctly. If I were rich I would build a forced induction engine with one intake valve and 2 exhaust with a hemi chamber for a bbc just for the hell of it. I think eagle mfg did something simular in the early 90's. But it was a 4 valve I think. I think 2 small exhaust valves would flow more than one big one. It would be awesome if one could use a slide valve or a rotary valve on the exhaust for a forced induction deal. Just thinking out loud. At the end of the day using turbs is more efficient than a belt system to a point depending on the application. This is where Info and Hass need to speak up. LOL They know about the effiency splits and ratio stuff. I'm out.
    QE 2050 W/ a Junk ass screw blower

    90% of the game is half mental... The pursuit of the unknown is priceless & gratifying . Sometimes it just takes good old fashion balls. No amount of reasoning or evaluation can deem it right or wrong. At the end of the day stick with whatever gives the person in question morning wood LOL

  13. #11
    Senior Member propless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Clovis, Cali
    Posts
    623

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cvxjet View Post
    Ok...Some back story; EVERYONE wants to use horsepower-per-liter as a reference of engine efficiency.....I try to point out to certain people that there are basically no cars that can beat the Vette/Camaro in REAL efficiency...Basically performance vs Fuel mileage....Why would you care how big the internal displacement is if you have; More power + Better MPG + Smaller external measurements + lighter weight.....People tend to get mad but no one has ever come up with a better Performance/MPG vehicle than the Vette/Camaro.....A functional comparison is that R&T magazine tested the new Camaro SS vs the Mustang GT and the Camaro was faster 0-60 and 1/4 (By 1/2 second) while getting 2-3 better MPG (Vehicle weight was within 50 lbs).....(Disclaimer; I WAS a Ford man in HS and my CVX-20 jet has a 460 in it....I am by no means anti-Ford....But I am a bit anti-4 valve!)

    Oh yeah; A lot of people like to claim that GM is "continuing with a crap-old-style PR engine because they don't want to spend the money or have the technology"...I try to tell them that GM did an analysis and concluded that the PR engine was actually better in the varied situations it was going to be in and actually beat the 4 valve engine everywhere that mattered......But then they want to lynch me AND set fire to me at the same time......

    Here is my interesting little discovery;

    The 2014 normally-aspirated Formula 1 engines displaced 2.4L and were "limited" to 18,000 rpm(!!!)....There were several different manufacturers, but the basic horsepower estimate was 750......


    I remember a Hot Rod Magazine article about an engine being built by DNE for a Jet drag boat.....565 CI (+ 9.26L) that generated 1000 horsepower at 6000 rpm, and then went on to hit a total of 1050 a few hundred rpm higher.


    I did the calculation for engine efficiency...I do not believe in comparing STATIC displacement....An engine displacing 3L turning 6000 rpm is (Basically) pumping the same amount of air as a 6L turning 3000- I instead believe in looking at air being processed thru the engine to generate the horsepower......so I have got in the habit of doing this calculation;


    Displacement(In Liters) X RPM (At which the max HP is generated) divided by Horsepower...This gives you the amount of air that has to be processed thru the engine to generate a single horsepower. I don't usually go "All the way" and divide by 2 for a 4 stroke engine.....All of my numbers are for the above simple calculation and for "Total accuracy" need to be divided by 2.....


    2014 Formula 1 engine; 2.4 (L) X 18,000 (RPM) = 43,200 divided by 750 (HP) = 57.6 (L per HP per minute(x 2)


    2003-5 Jet Drag boat engine; 9.26 (L) X 6000 (RPM) = 55,560 Divided by 1000 (HP) = 55.56 (L per HP per minute(x 2)





    This shows that the "Clunky old pushrod engine" actually BEATS the super high-tech, mega-dollar Formula 1 engines at efficiency....Un-freaking believable!!!


    I do this for any engine I look at in the magazines; Ferraris, Astons, Corvettes, Mustangs, Camaros...even Hondas. It only works for Normally-aspirated engines but, interestingly, most 4 valve engines come in around 75 and the LT1 GM engine comes in at aprox' 81.....The reason the Vette still gets better fuel economy is that it can run leaner because of the "Quench" combustion chamber.....


    Lets look at the Camaro vs Mustang using your math.

    Camaro, 6.1 (L) X 6000 (RPM) = 36600 divided by 455 (HP) = 80.4 (L per HP per minute(x 2)

    Mustang, 5.0 (actually 4.9 L) X 6500 (RPM) = 32500 divided by 435 (HP) = 74.7 (L per HP per minute(x 2)

    Hmmmmmmm, how can that be ??? You claim the "Clunky old pushrod" boat engine is better than the F1 engine because it has a lower (L per HP per minute(x 2) number. But then you claim the Camaro is better even though its number is higher than the Mustang. By your math/calculations the 4 valve Mustange clearly BEATS the clunky old pushrod Camaro.

    My numbers for the Camaro vs Mustang came from here 2016 Chevrolet Camaro SS vs. 2015 Ford Mustang GT: Final Scoring, Performance Data, and Complete Specs

  14. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,344

    Default

    Actually, the Camaro's engine is technically 6.2L......And yes, it does use more AIR for each HP........But, that is not the end of the story; The Quench-Style combustion chamber allows the PR/2V engine to run substantially leaner- especially at low power settings...Like cruise.

    The bottom line on this(And it does functionally change as technology moves on) is that the 6.2- in a Camaro- actually is faster AND gets better fuel efficiency than the Ford 5.0 Coyote 4V engine in a Mustang.

    GM built a 4V small block(LT5) back at the beginning of the 90s, and it generated 400hp approx'....But it was very heavy, very big, very top-heavy, very complicated and expensive, and it used a lot of fuel....Even against the OLD small block, it really couldn't compete. They redesigned the Small block into the LS V8...Lighter,, smaller in width and height, and while developing a bigger and broader power band than the Coyote 5.0, uses much less fuel.

    GM is not a bunch of dumb......XXXXs- They actually made a very tough decision, but using all of the info, they made the right decision....The only down side to the LS/LT V8s is that "Common Knowledge" causes most people to make statements like, "Stupid GM can't even move out of the early 20th century and build a modern engine that can really perform!!!!" ok.....show me a car that can beat a Vette or Camaro.......Acceleration AND MPG.......

  15. #13
    Senior Member propless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Clovis, Cali
    Posts
    623

    Default

    Does the Camaro get better MPG, yes.
    But, if your trying to explain the Camaros slight advantage in MPG, look at the gearing.
    Camaro = axle ratio = 2.77, 44.5 MPH per 1000rpm
    Mustang = axle ratio= 3.73, 34.0 HPH per 1000rpm

    Both transmitions have the same .65 overdrive ratio.

    Cruising down the road, the Mustang is turning a higher RPM. Yes Camaro has to deal with more ci, but the Mustang is processing more air at the same speed. And in the specs I linked to, the Camaro only shows a 1 mpg advantage. Its not more efficient, and its not running leaner, its just lumbering along at a way lower RPM processing slightly less air/fuel. I would bet the two are very close in air/fuel ratio at cruise.
    Only FAIR way to judge the engines efficiency would be to run both engines in the same conditions. Both engines using the same volume of air, both at the same load, etc. Oh wait, we did that with YOUR math, right ? If the 4 valve is using less air/fuel to make each HP, I think that shows true efficiency. Advantage 4 valve, by your own math.


    Is the Camaro quicker/faster, yes
    Camaro = 20 more HP
    Camaro = 50 more LB-FT Torque
    Camaro = 57 lbs lighter

    With advantages in all those areas, it better be quicker/faster. Typical GM way to try and beat a 5.0 Mustang = start with may more ci in a Camaro.


    With all that said, I'm sure you can agree we haven't seen the best from either of these engines yet. Every year, or few years the factories seem to find some extra HP and efficiency from both of them. Don't forget where the 32 valve Ford started. 93 Lincoln MK8, it was all aluminum, 4.6 L, made 280 HP, and got about the same MPG as the current one. Lots of changes sense then, and I'm sure we haven't see the final "perfect" version of either of these engines.

    I'm not bashing GM, they chose to stick with the pushrod design we all know and love. But you brought up engine efficiency, and the 4 valve Mustang has the advantage there (by your own math).

  16. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,344

    Default

    OK....The Mustang engine makes more HP per liter......But what does that smaller engine get you? Is it lighter? NO! Is it smaller, taking up less room under the hood? NO.....quite the opposite on both of those parameters....How about less costly....once again, no! Yes, if you measure efficiency by HP/L the Coyote is better...But not in HP vs MPG...In the specs you have in that link, the Camaro is faster AND gets BETTER MPG....So, seriously....What does that smaller engine get you...where is the benefit?.....If we were in Japan or racing, you are required to have a small engine, but who cares how many cubes you have if the engine does it's job, and gets better MPG.....I guess you can brag about "DOHC" and "4 valve" while bench racing....But I look at the real world ability of these two engines and the LS/LT is better than the Coyote.


    Let me make it clear, I loved it when MT tested the 2011 Mustang against a 2011 BMW M3(W/4L V8) around a track and with racer Randy Pobst driving, the Mustang was less than a tenth of a second slower during an 87 second lap...WITH a solid rear axle...a guy at work claimed that was BS.....He was actually livid! I am not anti-Ford, but I do not drink the koolaid as far as 4 valve engines are concerned....The 6.2 has more power over a broader range AND burns fuel more efficiently...Period!

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Register Now

Please enter the name by which you would like to log-in and be known on this site.

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in

Tags for this Thread

Digg This Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95