12 cylinders with less than 150hp...

I was browsing through some of the first Ferrari's in a catalog I have and the specs on these cars really caught my attention. Most were around 1.5L V12's and only a few were capable of breaking the 150hp mark. I suppose now that we are so spoiled with massive power ratings that it is tough for us younger "kids" to comprehend.

I know back in the 40's and 50's that was a lot to them and Ferrari was still starting out...but how do you get such little power from an engine with that many cylinders? It blows my mind when you compare modern V12's hitting over 600+ hp. It shows how far they've come but man....To have bragging rights on a V12 with 150hp must have really meant other engines only put out just a spit of power. Those specs really surprised me. I expected a least 200+hp or something.

I don't have the book now so I can't recall model numbers. I can get the info if anyone wants more info. Anyone else amazed by the same thing?

 

1) 50-60yrs of technology
2) Those modern V12s are usually a couple of times larger

 

I have some and seen others on a few occasions dyno readings on Ferrari's early 166 (2.0-liter) V-12s. The very best worked hard from 6,000 to 6,600RPM and few made 150bhp. The single carb "Inter" variants barely made over 100bhp!

What is often not remembered is that from after the war until well into the mid-1950s it was extremely difficult to get anything more than 80 octane fuel in Italy.

I have a 1949 Maserati with a pre-war derived GP engine and at 1500cc, Maserati claimed 100bhp. The truth is that it is more like 75bhp! I race the car regularly and it is a real struggle just to keep up with the later cars on the PACE LAP!

Cheers,

Bill

 

The engine was designed to be used with a supercharger. The main idea was to use very small cylinders so that the piston speed and piston acceleration values would remain low even at 10'000 RPM or so. There was not much point in running a 1,5-litre V12 without a supercharger. Lampredi even decided to replace the 2-litre V12 with an inline four (500/F2) he designed as he knew this concept would be more competitive than the Le Mans winning 166. Best wishes, Kare

 

My 3 V-12's:

1952, 2600 cc, 170 HP, 65 HP/litre
1957, 3000 cc, 240 HP, 80 HP/litre
1968, 4000 cc, 300 HP, 75 HP/litre

I think the crucial factor is engine size. Modern supercars go way above these displacement numbers.

Cheers,

Julio

 

Well, dont forget the weight! My V10 5.2 liter modern car (2007) weights about 1900 kg, my 2.5 l 1951 car with 170 (or so) hp weights about 800 kg. And they both feel very fast...The problem with the power increase you need, heavy chassis, heavy gearbox, heavy diff and thus weight increase...The philosofy of Colin Chapman was way ahead of its time. Only the turbo's were very succesful, but than again they are also from 1928....

ciao
Oscar

 

The much larger Lincoln V12 put out similar numbers in 1948, somewhere just barely north of 100 hp

 

From the cars I have/had:
250 GT/L: claimed 240 hp, built sheel 215 hp
275 GTB/6C: claimed 260 - 280, built sheet 236
330 GT 2+2: claimed 300, built sheet 261
500 SF: claimed 400, built sheet 290 (and I have even seen a worse one!)

Ferrari always exaggerated the power and understated the weight in their sales brochures.

 

in fact i read the opposite... like - SWBs could reach even 300 bhp

 

Ferrari sometimes caused hot rodded cars early in the production run to be driven by the media (for example see the R+T Harrah Daytona specs which turned out to be a 450+ hp one off) to shape consumer's beliefs. Only later when real production models were evaluated were the true performance numbers known (Ferrari claimed 352 hp), but Enzo knew legend always survives later reality.

 

330 GT 2+2: claimed 300, built sheet 261
500 SF: claimed 400, built sheet 290

How similar, (or not) are these to drive? I always wonder if folks who own SuperAmericas and Superfasts actually do drive them or does driving the car feel like such a sense of occasion that it is reserved for events? Thanks in advance for your answer. Best, Yale

 

The low quality of the petrol in the post WWII days may have something to do with the low specific output.

 

Yeah, my pf coupe indiana title from 1968 (a copy of the PO title) gives the weight of the car as I believe 2,450#. I am wondering how that could be? It seems like dry weight would be more than that. Maybe dry and with no spare or tool kit....or maybe its just a Ferrari promotional thing like the 17% optomistic speedo?

Tom W

 

100hp per litre of engine size is great! These days a little more is possible with sophisticated fuel and timing management.
For example, a 360 Modena is about 112hp per litre (400hp from 3586cc). Not much of an improvement over that 100hp per litre from the 1950s! For the vintage era, those Ferrari engines were very high output compared to everything else on the road. Jump ahead even to the "muscle car" era of the late 60s and those engines didn't have as high of an output (i.e. a 289 ford would have to put out 500hp to be equivalent).

 

I don't think so. At least Iäve enever heard of higher figure than 291 hp for 2455GT.

 

Also keep in mind that, in 1972, US manufacturers changed from "gross" to "net" horsepower ratings. The 50's and 60's cars were advertised with gross hp ratings, which were obtained with the engine on a stand and no ancillary systems (alternator, water pumpt, A/C compressor) attached to drag down the numbers.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower (about half-way down the page)

 

I drove my Superfast (# 8253) which I owned for 10 years a lot and mostly enjoyed it. Well it's a true Gran Tourismo on long Autobahn legs but with the big engine in front not very sporty on twisty mountain roads. The car was geared for app. 280 km/h in 5th at 7.000 rpm but I never tried it because it was just too frightening thinking about the inadequate brakes. And the wipers always lifted from the windscreen above 200 km/h. It might not have had the power to reach the top speed but the torque was fantastic. Passing others on the roads was alway fun because nobody expected the power. For me the 330 GT 2+2 (# 8637) is much nicer to drive. Not as quick but much nimbler.

 

I find this disturbing.....yet not unexpected.....

 

The real problem with the lack of power of this engine was with the bearings. The Colombo design of 1945 called for a thick wall plain floating bearings for the crankshaft and big ends. These were fine in low RPM engines of the time. Floating means the actual bearing also rotated inside the housing.. The engine was first bench tested in Sept of 1946 and produced 60-65 hp at 5500 rpm which was the max rpm these bearings would take. Lampredi arrived soon after this [Oct 2?] and after further tersting concluded these bearings would not work. Up until this time and prior to the war high rpm engines such as the Delage straight 8 GP cars used roller bearings and Lampredi realised this was the only way to go.Roller bearings were difficult and costly to make resulting in there limited use. Lampredi soon realised that trying to harden the bearing surfaces of the crankshaft which often resulted in warping of the entire shaft and the the required variences is diameter of the bearings themselves [1/1000 of a mm] to allow for expansion under high temperatures was going to be expensive and very time consuming.. March 27? 1947 Lampredi left Ferrari to go to Isotta Frachini. leaving furthere development to Fochi, Busso and Bazzi. While he was away Giulio Ramponi who had been closely associated with Alfa Romeo and Ferrari before the war,which he spent in England, arrived at Maranello representing Tony Vanderville from England and his Thinwall Bearings.These had been developed in America and had been extensively used in aircraft engines during the war.The design was made available to England as one of the many ways America helped England get back on its feet after the war. It is unclear whether Pamponi's visit to Ferrari came before or after Lampredi's return in Nov of 1947 but Lampredi quickly realised this was going to be the solution to the bearing problem. Thinwall bearings were ordered, installed and tested and with these as well as improved coiles and magnetos and manifolds the desired HP\RPMS was reliabley obtained. The results speak for themselves. Just one man's opinion tongascrew

 

Exactlly. 150hp from a 1.5 liter is a very good number even today.

 

Sure is. My 1.5L Lotus TC engine makes 117 HP stock and mine is more like 125. Additional porting, different cams and Weber carbs will give a nice streetable 150HP with a 7500 RPM red line. People claim in full race they can squeeze 180-200 HP.

Even "just" 125 HP in a 1600 pound car is pretty amazing!

Ken

 

The standard in the fifties and sixties was 1 hp per cu in. I suspect there may have been a thought mixup equating this standard with 100 hp per 1 liter which is only 61 CI.

Tom W

 

Tonga: Many thanks for the concise and lucid recap of the "bearing wars". As an old hot-rodder I can still remember the grief of "poured" bearings. The bearing situation is one of several reasons why, in those days, a car that made it to 100,000 miles was considered completely used up.

 

Thanks. Very interesting. (Tony's name was Vandervell I believe).

 

Making a 150 hp naturally aspirated 1,5-litre engine has been a day dream until very recently! Best wishes, Kare