Does any of this make sense?

Nope.

I don't see what a rumored small displacement V8 for a production car has to do with a rumored F1 rule change....

.....Oh, and when was the last time that a development in F1 actually brought about a change at the sad little Indy Racing League?

It goes without saying that there current is a complete disconnect between F1 and NASCAR.....unless.....nah, forget about it......unless......

 

The few articles I read before by autoextremists were pretty good at nailing things on the head (from my perspective), yet this one is totally out the window.

He speaks of V8 benefits coming in torque. 2.4L will not bring you torque, only horsepower. So what benefit can there possibly be for sticking a small displacement, high-revving V8 when we already have 4-cylinder engines doing this now? And trucks?

The motors developed for IRL and F1 may bring certain technologies to the real world, but certainly not its low displacement.

 

I agree totally with redzed...

 

Ah, but that assumes the same stroke is used in both engines. Also, there will likely be a significant different in ring tension, with the smaller-diameter cylinder having the advantage. I still understand and agree with your point, however.

Actually, the main loss of torque in this scenario is the loss of bore (assuming that the mean cylinder pressure remains the same, which it has to for an apples-to-apples comparison). This tradeoff between bore area and crank throw length means that there's often little difference in engine performance that can be directly related to bore/stroke ratio. It's usually only when one goes to the limit of either mean piston speed or maximum airflow that significant differences start to show up. This is why the trend in modern motorcycle engines has been towards a decreased bore/stroke ratio (four-valve heads not being quite as sensitive to decreased bore as the typical two-valve wedge head).

 

I think it would be really cool to be able to say that my Malibu (I'd never buy one, but if I did...) has a V8, your accord has a what? a v6 you say?

As far as losing tq by making a 2.4-3.5L v8, people have been driving hondas around for years now and don't seem to mind. If you could get the exterior packaging right, could you imagine a 3.0L V8 Cobalt SS yea.. I just said v8 Cobalt, SRT-4 what?

 

I don't see how the new Z06 is the limit in the GEN III/IV motors. The head on the new 427 is far from the best head that has ever been and there are even a few tweaks that could be made to the head to make it better.

 

And let's not forget about those 3-valve Gen IV cylider heads that the Z06 was supposed to have!

 

Problem is if the V8 doesn't make as much power as the larger V6 people will bash GM. Honda makes a V6 that out performs Chevy V8s. Plus (even though it isn't true) a lot of older people think V8's are gas pigs.

 

they could just make the motor run on 6 or 4 then when you mash the gas or certain rpms are hit then the others kick on ( i heard cadillac is doing this in new cars not sure though i just heard it)

 

The Corprate 5.3 has DOD in some truck apps and the LS4 in the MCSS, Impy SS, and GP has it also.

Caddy owners can pay for the extra gas.

 

IMO If you're building a tiny displacement V8, you're taking all the goodness out of it and stripping everything we love about the V8. The torque. What's the problem with the Gen III/IV motors? Excellent fuel economy for such large displacement, better packaging than an OHC V8...heck the beauty of the LS7 is that on the outside you'd never be able to tell it packs 1.3 L more displacement than any regular ol' LS1.

I scoff at the notion that the LS7 shows the maximum potential of a N/A V8. Aftermarket companies have already declared the LS7 heads to be "very nice pieces...but there's definitely room for improvement."

 

yeah thats what i was thinking, if anything the zo6 is proof that there is even more that can be pulled out of the LS smallblocks, not the limit.

 

2.1 Liter V10 Hybrid concept

Goes on sale next year in the UK