"If only EssExTee could be so grossly incandescent" (essextee) 05/24/2014 at 02:37 • Filed to: None

1

24

Are U.S. car makers ever gonna adopt the Euro-style small-displacement V8? I think currently the smallest one we can get is the 5.0 from the Mustang, it would be cool if we could see stuff like 4 liter V8s in place of large V6s.

CRider > If only EssExTee could be so grossly incandescent 05/24/2014 at 02:40

1

Why? We're doing perfectly fine with our Freedom-size V8s. And in case you haven't been around this week, the new Hellcat V8 is smaller than the engine it replaces. SO THERE, YA COMMIE!

Your boy, BJR > If only EssExTee could be so grossly incandescent 05/24/2014 at 02:42

1

My Auroras had 4.0 V8s, which, were pretty fucking cool, despite their………faults (Seriously, those 2 were the worst cars I owned, if not the nicest)

Axial > If only EssExTee could be so grossly incandescent 05/24/2014 at 02:50

6

The irony of this idea is that the Euro cars with tiny V8s often get some pretty atrocious fuel economies. Why? Because revs. Revs are bad for fuel economy, and with less displacement comes the need for more revs.

Blake Noble > If only EssExTee could be so grossly incandescent 05/24/2014 at 02:51

1

Lincoln had a 3.9L V8 in the LS. To be fair though, it was borrowed from Jag.

Reigntastic > Axial 05/24/2014 at 02:53

2

Yeah, first thing that came to mind was the 4 liter V8 in the E90 M3. 8.8K redline, 15mpg average city economy.

Axial > Reigntastic 05/24/2014 at 02:55

0

I was thinking of the 4.2 L R8, which isn't much better. Then I thought of the 2.8 L F40, which is LOLbad. Then I Google searched the RS7 (which wasn't too shabby, but a C7 Corvette it is not).

Reigntastic > Axial 05/24/2014 at 02:57

0

Well, the F40 did have two turbochargers assisting with that lovely economy. GM has always kind of gamed the city ratings with Vettes, though. The C7 has that preinstalled 1st to 4th bullshit, yeah? They still get phenomenal highway mileage, though.

Axial > Reigntastic 05/24/2014 at 03:02

1

Yeah, turbos didn't help the F40. I was just curious about it. Ferrari is all about revs, though, so I don't expect any of their cars to have good fuel economy.

One-to-Four in the Corvettes (which has been around since '89) honestly has negative effects on fuel economy in practice because most of us who don't remove it just rev higher to get past it. The real trick is the twin overdrives that are 5th and 6th.

BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires > If only EssExTee could be so grossly incandescent 05/24/2014 at 03:39

1

I kind of like the variety. In the past, American cars were for the most part big with honking great engines, and European cars were small with little engines.

The difference in philosophy both then and now is one that drives variety in the automotive world, which I like a lot.

jdrgoat - Ponticrack? > If only EssExTee could be so grossly incandescent 05/24/2014 at 03:40

3

It's largely a matter of regulations. For one, the EU countries typically tax based on engine displacement. (That's also why there was an Italy-only 208 when the rest of the world got the 308. Yes, a 2.0L V8 so that it wasn't taxed a large amount more for being over 2.0L.) Also the way emissions are regulated over there are not as friendly to larger displacements. This is also why there are more diesels there than here, regulations are stricter here.

Then there's also the geographical and cultural differences. The average miles driven by a car in the US is about 12,000. In the EU it's more usually 6,000 and on smaller streets, in smaller cars, over shorter distances. An American V8 of around 6.0L would never have time to make use of its virtues over there as it can here, there's no need for the mountains of torque so low in the rev range that allow the bigger displacement V8 to do so well on the highway cycle in the US. Don't forget that the US really still is a spread out 'country of opportunity' compared to the countries over there.

And counterpoints. Oldsmobile "Shortstar" 4.0L V8, and its very close cousin the Cadillac Northstar 4.6L V8. The two decades of Ford's Modular V8 in Fords and in the InTech V8 Lincolns at 4.6L. The Small Block Chevrolet was initially a 265ci (4.3L), and the 4.3L displacement also returned in the mid-90's in the Caprice (and I'm assuming other B-bodies). Mopar had the 4.7L 318ci engine for decades.

In the vehicles in the US, it makes more sense to use more displacement. The emissions regulation structures favor it, the road system favors it, and the vehicle types and driving styles favor it. How many non-jalops don't flinch when their engine nears redline? And this also allows us to have large V6s in our very American pickup trucks that make over 300hp and have torque curves flatter than Kansas, see: GM's LV3.

deekster_caddy > If only EssExTee could be so grossly incandescent 05/24/2014 at 09:21

0

don't forget the northstar V8s. Olds Auroura and some early northstars in caddies were pretty small etc. unfortunately early northstars had a lot of issues...

deekster_caddy > Axial 05/24/2014 at 09:25

0

you can design such a motor for more low end torque and therefore keep it's revs down. I put 2.93 gears in my 455 '73 Buick and keep the revs down at highway speed and can get 16 or so MPG hwy, same as any modern V8 yukon/Tahoe etc (before variable displacement/vvt etc)

Makoyouidiot > Axial 05/24/2014 at 11:29

1

4.0 v8 in my Disco didn't rev much, but still got 12mpg because omg a Disco weighs as much as a small Death Star and that thing only made 175bhp.

Axial > deekster_caddy 05/24/2014 at 12:45

1

Well yeah, that's typically the American way of doing V8s. Large displacement combined with some smart gearing helps our cars get nearly 30 MPG highway (officially) today. The lower gears are for getting to speed quickly and then you just slap it into the tallest overdrive and cruise.

I like the American way of doing it better than the European way. It's more...relaxing?

Manuél Ferrari > Axial 05/24/2014 at 22:19

1

True. But MOAR revs are an awesome thing in a sports car :)

For a cruiser a bigger engine with more torque is better. But I love me a small V8 with a redline north of 8000 RPMs in a sports car.

Axial > Manuél Ferrari 05/25/2014 at 09:13

1

A shame that more engines don't do the bi-modal thing like the LT5, then. Secondary set of injectors allows low-rev cruising OR 7000+ rpm track attacks.

Manuél Ferrari > Axial 05/25/2014 at 13:25

0

Never knew about that. Pretty cool!

I also want to see the return of the tiny V12. 3L V12s sound awesome!

Maybe we'll eventually have affordable carbon nanotube production. Then cars will be crazy light and we can have N/A screamers that get good gas mileage.

Fluxx > Manuél Ferrari 05/26/2014 at 10:31

1

NA screamers don't get anywhere near good fuel economy, the FA20 in my FR-S gets about 7mpg when revved above 6,000rpms.

Manuél Ferrari > Fluxx 05/26/2014 at 13:44

0

But it's so fun!!!!

I tend to rev my 997.1 above 6K a fair bit. I still get great mileage because the car is getting such good mileage when I'm driving moderately.

Cé hé sin > If only EssExTee could be so grossly incandescent 05/26/2014 at 17:18

0

What are these small displacement V8s of which you type? BMW, Audi and Merc made or have made them in about 4 litres but they're not exactly common

dmcspeedy > jdrgoat - Ponticrack? 05/31/2014 at 09:48

0

Historically you're right that tax regimes were based on displacement (for most of the early 20th century, British cars were actually taxed based on cylinder diameter x number of cylinders, which led to weird undersquare designs).

However, it's all based on CO2 emissions these days.

jdrgoat - Ponticrack? > dmcspeedy 05/31/2014 at 16:56

0

That is true. It could be argued, though, that CO2 regulations are essentially displacement regulations, since CO2 emissions almost directly correlate to engine displacement. And CO2 emissions are more strictly regulated in that EU part of the world than the US part of the world.

dmcspeedy > jdrgoat - Ponticrack? 06/01/2014 at 09:12

1

Evo FQ400 owners paying £1060 a year to tax a 2.0L engine might disagree with that ;) CO2's basically a measure of how much fuel you can combust, and therefore power output - otherwise turbocharged monsters like the Evo would get a free pass.

But yes, your point is correct that historically the different tax systems led Euro manufacturers to pursue power through efficiency (DOHC, fuel injection, variable valve timing, stratified direct injection etc.) rather than via increased displacement.

jdrgoat - Ponticrack? > dmcspeedy 06/02/2014 at 13:08

0

I don't live on that side of the pond (I don't even have a £ key on my computer keyboard), so I have to largely by generalizations. And I live in a state without any emissions testing. Thanks for clarifying a little bit for me. The FQ400 is somewhat of an outlier to my knowledge, but those exceptions to the generalizations are good to know about.

And it does appear that in modern times the volumetric efficiency of engines of a given type (V6, turbo 4, etc) are all in the same ballpark no matter which part of the world they originate.