View Single Post
      01-07-2013, 02:15 AM   #42
bruce.augenstein@comcast.
Lieutenant Colonel
21
Rep
1,908
Posts

 
Drives: Legacy GT - 13.704@99.39
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manheim, PA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MKE_M3 View Post
...The idea that identical power developed at 8300 or 4150 is identical is absurd based on pure physics as it would be necessary to have one engine double the torque of the other. If that is possible without forced induction or without increasing weight via significantly larger engine size, I've never seen it in practice or in theory.
I've already mentioned the LS3 small-block Chevy which is more than twice the cubic capacity of the M3 engine at 6.2 liters, weighs a little less, is slightly more compact and makes a bit more power (436 HP) - at 5900 rpm. To make that kind of power at 4150, you'd need another small block Chevy with more capacity. Blocks are available at up to 7 liters (and they all weigh within around 20 pounds of each other), so making 414 HP at 4150 rpm would be childishly simple. Of course you'd have to run a very detuned version of such a motor, which Chevrolet doesn't do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MKE_M3 View Post
If high specific output doesn't matter, only power, then why do the most elite sports car companies make street cars with high specific output motors? Why not just make the biggest motor and save a ton of money in development costs. Again, consider the power Ferrari could get out of a 5 liter or 6 liter or 7 liter or 8 liter... Yet they choose sub 5 liter engines for their most track focused cars.
European engines have a many decades long history of getting more power out of low cubic capacity, largely dictated by laws dating way back which restrict cubic capacity via usurious taxes. If you wanted to make good power, you had to go for rpm, which cam-in-block engines don't do very well by comparison to OHC engines. There are also a number of race venues that restrict engine capacity, so rpm is the solution to that problem.

...and by the way, have you noticed that Ferrari is building some larger engines nowadays?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MKE_M3 View Post
I'm curious what your theory is on why Ferrari doesn't use huge engines to develop max power. My guess is that they are trying to be efficient with the power to weight ratio. Sure, Bugatti has their quad turbo W16 monster, but that is not a track focused platform. It is the ultimate GT, which has different priorities over sports cars.
I have no clue as to why Ferrari does what it does (other than tradition already mentioned), but as long as you're talking about racing, how could the lowly pushrod Vettes beat up on Ferrari, BMW, et al in the 2012 ALMS series, GT2 class?

They also dominated GT1 for many years. How is that possible?

Look, I'm not saying very high revs are in any way undesireable, just not always necessary. In fact, the M3 engine is a world class powerplant - but so is the Merc 6.2 liter, and so is the Z06 7 liter.

Look, this all started with me pointing out my disagreements with most of the basic points in your initial post - which by the way you have not yet refuted in any meaningfull way.

Why don't you?

Bruce

PS - Just remembered those 7 liter Ford GTs back in the sixties that beat the crap out of the Ferraris. My point in mentioning that is to show that few things are absolute.