its a shame they choose cylinder count. like I realize that the small cylinder engines have a tough time meeting emissions for whatever reason but I would love to see a 2.5L V12 or something wild, torque fill with e-motor and let the tiny screamer rev its head off.
I’d love if someone could clue us in about why manufacturers view less cylinders but larger displacement is better than more cylinders but smaller displacement. A small, high-revving V8 like the old F1 V8s would be so cool. I suspect the main reasons are complexity and powerband.
Efficiency, emissions, weight, and packaging. More cylinders means more parts, such as more valvetrain components, more stuff rotating, etc. More cylinders adds more internal engine drag, which lowers efficiency. V6s are awesome in engine packaging (assuming there’s no turbocharger involved), as they are practically a perfect cube in the engine compartment. Their shorter size makes it easier to shove a larger transmission and maybe a hybrid motor or two. High revs are also not great in the emissions department.
And most importantly, most customers are the types who wants an instant kick in torque. Reving out the engine is seen as “lag” or “sluggishness”.
It has mostly to do with how controlable one thing is over the other.
First of. Speed of your car or rather the Power is a product of torque within a time period. Think of Merry go Rounds in children’s playgrounds. You can decide to either rarely push it, but with heavy emphasis on oomphs by putting your whole body into it or you can keep both hands on it switching and pulling permanently and continuesly.
Large displacement means a car is,… lets say torque “biased/operated”. Big oomphs and big booms. The way you contain that problem is simply by building sidewalls thick enough that can handle the heat those explosions emit. Thats basically it. Thatswhy the 2JZ can be pushed so hard. Because it is a cast iron block with tons of excess material. The downside here being its massive weight.
Now say you want to generate that power by reducing the time factor, by increasing rpm.
In order to increase the RPM by a 1000 in a 2JZ/6 cylinder you introduce a shitload of possible failure points in those moving parts.
At the annual distance traveled of 15k km that would be an 10 Mio rotations, times 4 Valves times 6 cylinders times 3 connecting points that make your piston we will get an astronomical number of additional operations by all the moving parts involved.
Even if they are near perfectly machined and enginered at 99,8% perfection.
You roll the dice often enough - shit will break.
this is happening to everyone. if its not cylinder count its displacement. The F8 and SF90 have a smaller v8 that can’t rev has high as the 458.
its a shame they choose cylinder count. like I realize that the small cylinder engines have a tough time meeting emissions for whatever reason but I would love to see a 2.5L V12 or something wild, torque fill with e-motor and let the tiny screamer rev its head off.
I’d love if someone could clue us in about why manufacturers view less cylinders but larger displacement is better than more cylinders but smaller displacement. A small, high-revving V8 like the old F1 V8s would be so cool. I suspect the main reasons are complexity and powerband.
Because years ago some German eggheads decided that 0.5 liters per cylinder is the optimum for efficiency.
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a15358174/why-0-5-liter-cylinders-will-soon-dominate-automotive-engine-design/
Efficiency, emissions, weight, and packaging. More cylinders means more parts, such as more valvetrain components, more stuff rotating, etc. More cylinders adds more internal engine drag, which lowers efficiency. V6s are awesome in engine packaging (assuming there’s no turbocharger involved), as they are practically a perfect cube in the engine compartment. Their shorter size makes it easier to shove a larger transmission and maybe a hybrid motor or two. High revs are also not great in the emissions department.
And most importantly, most customers are the types who wants an instant kick in torque. Reving out the engine is seen as “lag” or “sluggishness”.
That is fairly easy explained.
It has mostly to do with how controlable one thing is over the other.
First of. Speed of your car or rather the Power is a product of torque within a time period. Think of Merry go Rounds in children’s playgrounds. You can decide to either rarely push it, but with heavy emphasis on oomphs by putting your whole body into it or you can keep both hands on it switching and pulling permanently and continuesly.
Large displacement means a car is,… lets say torque “biased/operated”. Big oomphs and big booms. The way you contain that problem is simply by building sidewalls thick enough that can handle the heat those explosions emit. Thats basically it. Thatswhy the 2JZ can be pushed so hard. Because it is a cast iron block with tons of excess material. The downside here being its massive weight.
Now say you want to generate that power by reducing the time factor, by increasing rpm.
In order to increase the RPM by a 1000 in a 2JZ/6 cylinder you introduce a shitload of possible failure points in those moving parts.
At the annual distance traveled of 15k km that would be an 10 Mio rotations, times 4 Valves times 6 cylinders times 3 connecting points that make your piston we will get an astronomical number of additional operations by all the moving parts involved.
Even if they are near perfectly machined and enginered at 99,8% perfection.
You roll the dice often enough - shit will break.
Fuck it let’s put in a V12 two stroke
f1 had ferrari v12’s with a 1.5L back in the 50’s. 3L and 3.5L v12’s were around in the 80’s
Smaller displacement usually means engines can rev higher. It’s the turbos keeping the newer engines from spinning up so much.