The point is, that modern engines are much more efficient. You get more power and less waste, from your fuel. By definition, this gives more power per litre of engine capacity.
There are plenty of >=180bhp 2.0 engines around these days. I suspect there are zero 90bhp 1.0s :) There are a few 3.0 lumps with >250bhp.
Agreed - I'd *much* prefer the Turbo !
It's a 2.0 High-Pressure Turbo, and with all of the above, it makes about
200bhp. I define that as old-tech.
Honda make 200bhp from their 2.0 engine with no Turbo. Renault and Peugeot make 180bhp from theirs, with no VTec or Turbo. I define those as modern-tech.
It is - it's their standard WRX STi here in the UK. Mitsubishi have even greater outputs from their 2.0 Turbo fitted to the (much more expensive) Evo. As above, these are modern-tech. Compare their power outputs to the previously mentioned Cosworth.
That was something of a supercar though - anything is possible when money is no object :)
It only drops to 374bhp if you tell it to, by flicking the switch.
Agreed.
I agree - it's a stupid decision. But that's what they said !
Agreed - Turbo engines are the way forward. Their new petrol engines that they're co-developing with Peugeot, are all Turbo'd - but I was under the impression that they're only going to be used in niche cars and the new Mini.
That 3.0 litre straight six is in fact an old engine, about 15 years of age. It produced in the 735i about 211 HP. (but from 3.5litre)
Add 2 turbo's, a small one for lower RMP, a bigger on that takes smoothly over at about 4000 RPM and that old, useless engine is brand new , modern and a whole lot cheap than the V8 is about to replace.
No, it seems just right. Faster would bring the standard engine into M- territory. BMW is German, they like borders and prices that go with them.
Just to put it in perspective: the last 928 GTS had 350HP out of 5.4l for a car weighing 1610 kg, the turbo-BMW 3 series will have very similar weight and power.
330 HP in about 1600 kg of car is not, I say again, not a bad drive.
But you still don't give the definition of "modern-tech".
Imho the Cosworth engine has all the bits and pieces of your "modern-tech" examples. Indeed: it has only 225 HP in standard trim. "Standard" Cosworths are however rarer than rocking horse shit.
Just to put in perspectif : the "old-tech" Cosworth -engine has sparked a whole industrie in the UK. From turbo-charged to atmosferic. The engine is available from 200 HP Atmo to around 600 HP turbo-charged.
Maybe hard to believe: the 2.0l coswort atmo is lot slower than the 2.0 turbo.
Call me old-fashioned but the modern-tech engines will struggle a bit to pass
250hp/liter, you are very near to formula 1-technology then. Call me however when you find a 2 liter non-supercharged, affordable, 500HP engine though.
In my -hopefully soon te be trackcar- I will have 500 HP... but out of a 5L V8... :)
240 HP even, but at 8000 RPM. This afternoon I will collect my Honda, the tires are flown over for Japan. If you hear a bang: it is me dropping to the ground when I see the bill.
The S2000-engine is around here much sought after: expect to pay for a crashed one around 8000 UKP.
Our Yamaha engine 600cc R6 gives 146 HP (± 2 HP) at 16.500 RPM. In racetrim the engine lives about 20 Hrs.
I guess that your modern-tech is another word for high RMP. If that's the case then bike engines have been modern-tech sinces ages. Actual bike engine must be living in the future :)
:)
Imho the Evo-engine is identical to the Cosworth-engine as is their power potential. Don't really know the Mitsu-engine but as only advantage I would say that probably they weigh a bit less.
The Maserati 2.0liter bi-turbo is /was not exactly expensif to buy, however it was fragile and ate wallets as well in repairs as in gas. Oddly engough (but there is a Italian logic to it) : the Maserati 2.8 V6 bi-turbo produced only
270 HP
All comes back to the same: if you want a lot of useable power from a given displacement, the expensif way is atmosferic (read : high RPM), cheap and enormous power comes with supercharging (either compressor or turbo).
Motorsport's handicap on turbo's is engine-displacement * 1.7 So -at first- ruling bodies thought that an atmosferic engine with 1.7 times the displacement was equal to the corresponding turbo-engine.
BMW for one was at the receiving end when their M3 Evo's (430 Hr out of 2.5 liter) were whipped by a certain Ford Cosworth (with 580 HP out of 2.0liter turbo) and that was in 24Hr-endurance trim...
Later rules either banned turbos or imposed restrictors on the turbo inlet, from then on power was ±300 HP on 2.0 liter turbo's. A 300 HP turbo-engine is reliable, Renault 280Hp 2liter engine is not and way more expensif.
Wonder how my 1809cc turbo motor would go at stage 3 - 330bhp in a
1170Kg car (should be about 1300kg with me and 1/2 tank of fuel). Wonder how long it would go. The usual SXOC comment is if (when?) it breaks it's telling you to upgrade. Pauter rods, forged pistons and a big 450-550bhp turbo @23-28psi on a tubular manifold. Could be even better with a compound turbo to go hunt M3, 911's... and turn em into trackkill.
Think I could crack 200mph for about 1/3rd the cost of that Lotus V8 that Tiff is playing with on 5th gear. Definitely 1/2 but maybe 1/4. Less than the cost of a RUF Porsche upgrade. Would be a hell of a lot of cash to spend on a sub £1K car.
All that is possible but you don't need 330 HP on the street to kill most Porsches or exotics.
For the track: your -I suppose- Audi / VW / Seat or maybe an older Nissan would need extra bits even before the 330HP-engine: suspension, tires and brakes.
Trackkill is a very temporary satisfaction. As long as it is not racing, I hold back: I don't find it hard to be "trackkilled" by a lesser car. On trackdays we play taximan while enjoying ourselves, we are not there to wreck nice machinery.
From first hand experiance on trackdays (but not at the receiving end (yett)): people with big ego's, drooling for the trackkill of that M3, NSX or 911, get sadly wiser when their pride and joy lies rolled in the graveltrap or stuck in the tirewall. Sure : they smoked that Porsche just before...
For 200 mph on a track in touringcar shape you a racecar with at least 550-600 HP. 200 mph on open roads requires about 400 Hp.
Best of luck but remember that the 200 mph-club is rather exclusif territory. If you mock up, chances are that club will write you out. No risk, no fun however.
F1 turbo technology ran over 900bhp/L for qualifying and 550bhp/L for race.
N/A can't do much better than 250bhp/L on 350cc cylinders. I don't think that for all the money the F1 have spent they will ever match the 1966 Honda's 320bhp/L
formatting link
they dropped to 304bhp/L when they added 3 more cylinders of thesame 25cc size.
With N/A as cc/cylinder go up you start fighting a losing battle. The big 7 litre V8s on pump fuel can't make much more power than the 5 liter V8s. Because what they gain on piston area they lose in rpm. I know of a 7L V8 that's supposed to make 1400bhp - 200bhp/L - owner claims "it's built on compression". No blower, no nitrous, no nitro but I bet the fuel is an expensively funny colour. No transmission either from what I could get out of him, appears he uses a slider clutch direct to final drive all the way. Expects and has run a season without rebuild.
It would be nice but the engine is designed the fill the available gap... Stepping on the toes of the new M3 would not be a good decision... But with a remap... :)
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.