Quick question..... Why is it that Ferrari/Lambo tend to use relatively small displacement engines for the number of cylinders? Is it a historical racing heritage (i.e. to fit a certain class) that is being upheld?
Italian Government taxation comes in heavily on engines with a displacement higher than 2.0l. That is why, for example, Ferrari created the 208 GTS in the European market, a 308 with a 2.0l turbo V8 engine.
The tax laws are still in effect, so those who choose to purchase any passenger car in Italy with a displacement over 2.0l pays a hefty sum to the government. As far as I know, the 208 was the only F-car created by Ferrari to cater to those who didn't want to pay the hefty taxes. Since then, I guess the mgmt at Ferrari figures that if you can afford a 360 or 575 or Enzo, the taxes the government takes probably won't hurt all that much. But, this tax has been in effect for quite a while, and Ferrari, Maser, Lambos, etc etc, have all strived to create small displacement passenger cars, and it is now their "heritage". That, in addition, to using motors derived from race engines that had specific restrictions on displacement.
In addition Grand Prix and Sport Cars of the early century needed lightweight engines (still the case today in F1). There were plenty of V8, V12, and even V16 monster engines but there were just as many small displacement engines in racing. The teams that compete in F1 and CART/IRL have to engineer small displacement engines with huge horsepower so some of this carries over to street cars. Regards, Jon P. Kofod www.flatoutracing.net
I would say it helps them show how good they are in design. Simply because anyone can make a car go fast with some bloody great 7 liter motor! I think its good that they stay with the smaller engines derived from their racing cars because it keeps them on top in technology and metallurgy. my .02
As an engineer, I agree! But, why not apply that same technology to a larger engine? I think of this all the time when I think my little 2.2L is "something". In the back of my mind, I know that if the engine was 4.4L, Id be making darn near double the power, all else equal. Or, I could run the 4.4L half as "hard" and get to the same point. All the while (generally speaking), having more low end.
Well, true and I completely understand where your coming from. To a point I agree but then you have a car that anyone could design. Power is great and we could through aluminum big blocks in everything... but where would the fun be in that(?)... other then constant smoky burnouts.
A 4.4L will not necessarily be twice as powerful as a 2.2L. It might if it had twice the number of cylinders. There is an advantage to having a bunch of small cylinders instead of fewer larger ones. Flow through the head will be better, volumetric efficiency should be better, there is less weight in each piston, etc. A big American V8 will also not rev as high as an engine designed in the Italian manner. This will require more gear changes, lessing the torque that gets to the rear wheels, and therefore the road. That's yet another reason why the V8 has to be so much larger than the equivelent V12 to produce the same effect.
Thus, my "all else equal" comment Im not trying to compare American V8 to an Italian V12 here fellas. Im just wondering why a few marques prefer to do things the way they do
Sorry bro, but your skills as an engineer seems to be as bad as your skills as a foreign policy advisor. A "big american V8" does not rev as high as an "Italian mannered" car because of bore vs. stroke - it has nothing to do with displacement. The longer the stoke, the lower the potential "reliable" rpms. Italian cars like F-cars have a big bore, small stroke design, allowing for a much more durable high-rev motor - with a small stroke, the con rods are shorter, making a more robust con rod that can sustain higher rpms, and with a short stroke, the engine can rev a lot faster because the piston does not need to travel the same distance, making each cycle shorter. In addition, most big american V8's used a push-rod engine vs. overhead cam engine. Big deal, right? Wrong. A push rod motor needs a lot more power to operate than an OHC motor, and the actual pushrod components cannot sustain high-rpm applications for too long. New US V8s use either a SOHC or DOHC setup, and in the case of the Cobra, an RPM of 7,000 is made even with a long stroke. Also, volumetric efficiency does *not* increase with the numbers of cylinders - in fact, it decreases. The only thing that increases VE is typically intake, head, and exhaust design. This has *nothing* to do with the number of pistons in the engine. A one-cylinder engine with an incredible intake, heade, and exhaust design will have a much higher VE rating than a mid-80's Jaguar V12. The biggest advantade to a 12 cyl engine is smoothness of the engine - in theory, a V8 and V12 with the same displacement, bore/stroke ratio, and similar intake, head, and exhaust tech will have rougly the same HP and TQ, but the V12 will run much smoother. As for the less RPM, more gear changes, less TQ to the ground, all I have to say is WTF? Sorry, but most people here don't speak douce-bag. Could you rephrase that in english? Thanks. Next time figure out what the hell you are talking about before spouting s a bunch of crap in hope of sounding smart.
