Why?

[Aiden2002]

I'm new here. I just want to know why everyone seems to think that a four cylinder can't compete with a V8. Most V8's don't have much technology behind them. True there is no replacement for displacement, but that doesn't mean you need a 4+ liter motor to go fast. 3.0 liters is enough. A 2jz is capable of 1200+ horsepower on pump gas. That's alot. Also anyone who thinks that a high reving motor is a bad thing is retarded. Horsepower is what makes you car move. the formula for horsepower is RPM*Torque/5252. That means that more RPM is just as important as more torque. Also, just because a car has a body kit and isn't fat doesn't make them an idiot. They are an idiot if they think they are fast. My friend drives a 2003 Civic Hybrid with a hood, fenders, roof scoop, mirrors, full ground effects, and a wing. He knows it's not fast. It isn't supposed to be. It's supposed to get 40 miles to the gallon. It does. If it wasn't painted, he'd be a retard. It is. So that's what i think is hot and not.

Hot= Smart people who think before they talk, or post, as the case may be.

Not= People who think that 4 cylinders are slow, superchargers are cool, and that Hemi's are better than 4 valves per cylinder.

[CashMoneyInd]

Well those V8 owners probably are thinking the exact same thing towards your 4 bangers. They probably think HEMI's are better than 4 valves per cylinder. You are showing the exact same bias that you are accusing the "V8" owners of having.

[jon@af]

Welcome to the internet.

[Aiden2002]

No, I know that 4 valves per cylinder is capable of more power, therefore making them better. If I only had a motor that revved to say 3k (which would be inefficient) then I would want a Hemi, but since I would never have a motor that revved that low, I don't. I have nothing against V8's, I have a thing against low tech, inefficient motors. Honda has a 3.0 liter V8 in there F1 car that cranks out 800 horses and that NA! (Hopefully just because of regulations)

In all actuality, a 3.2 liter or larger V8 should be putting out twice as much or more horse than my car, a near stock Honda Civic. They should roast me, hardcore style. As it is, they only roast me. (It's a civic, it's not fast.)

Also, I feel that gas mileage is part of the equation. I feel that if you race someone, and win, while getting better gas mileage, your car is that much superior to their's. If you lost the race by a small margin, you can feel better in the fact that your car is more efficient. If you get roasted, like say a near stock Honda Civic Vs. a Corvette Z06, all you can do pretty much is pull over and cry until there are no more tears, not that i've ever done that. (Seriously, I haven't ever raced a Vette before, but i wouldn't cry because I lost.)

[CashMoneyInd]

Sure you haven't raced a corvette and cried about it.... hehe...

[freakray]

Originally Posted by Aiden2002

Honda has a 3.0 liter V8 in there F1 car that cranks out 800 horses and that NA! (Hopefully just because of regulations)

Let me help you out here.

Honda doesn't have an F1 car, they supply engines to British American Racing (BAR) for BAR's F1 car.
They have a partnership in which BAR supply a car and Honda supply and engine.

F1 cars are by regulation N/A, they used to be turbo charged some years ago but the FIA felt the cars were getting dangerously fast (they were producting nearly double the HP of the current cars).

Did you consider that gas consumption is as much a proportion of the engine rpm's as it is of the engine displacement?
A high revving 4 cylinder can use as much gas as a low revving 8 cylinder, the engine displacement is a factor in conjunction with the output rpm.

So, how old are we?

[SnoopisTDI]

Also, the F1 engine is a V10, not a V8. They are probably over 900hp, and have claimed that they think they will exceed 1000hp this year. But I don't know why anyone would compare street cars to Honda F1 engines, where they probably have over $100million/year to spend for engines to race two cars....

[MagicRat]

Originally Posted by Aiden2002

No, I know that 4 valves per cylinder is capable of more power, therefore making them better. If I only had a motor that revved to say 3k (which would be inefficient) then I would want a Hemi, but since I would never have a motor that revved that low, I don't. I have nothing against V8's, I have a thing against low tech, inefficient motors.

Generally, I agree with you, but I might suggest this:
What do you mean by "inefficient"?

The engine design must suit the application. Low tech does NOT mean inefficient. There are plenty of engines that are simple, but are thermodynamically very efficient.
For example, an engine that produces maximum torque at lower revs tends to have lower friction and thus,greater efficiency, all other things being equal. Simple two valve heads are better at this than a 4 valve head.

Thermodynamic efficiency is important as well. The hemispherical combustion chamber (typical of OHC engines) can support higher compression and greater thermodynamic effieincy than a wedge shaped chamber, typical in pushrod engines.
However, there have been many two - valve hemi heads, both pushrod and OHC that have been made over the years. Such engines benefit from efficient combustion chamber shapes but don't have to rev to the moon to produce maximum power.

What about manufacturing and space efficiency? 4 valve DOHC engines are expensive to make and are relatively bulky. Pushrod engines tend to be cheaper to make and more compact.

Two valve heads tend to work better at lower revs than a 4 valve head and are a better choice for trucks and utility vehicles.
Therefore, I would want a 4 valve head in my sporty car and my motorcycle, but not in my truck or SUV.

[curtis73]

Originally Posted by Aiden2002

No, I know that 4 valves per cylinder is capable of more power, therefore making them better.

Correction, it makes them different. It makes low end efficiency terrible and adds other volumetric and swirl problems at low RPM that I don't care to deal with. Your premise (in my opinion) starts from a flawed basis; that HP is what is desired. Marketing tells you that HP is a good thing, but on the street you don't drive HP. You drive torque. In a race, HP is a valuable number that categorizes an expectation, but HP itself is a number derived from torque. Torque is what moves the car. Where that torque is determines how much hp an engine can make. Although it is a valuable number that expresses torsional work, HP is so grossly misunderstood as it is in this case.

If I only had a motor that revved to say 3k (which would be inefficient) then I would want a Hemi, but since I would never have a motor that revved that low, I don't. I have nothing against V8's, I have a thing against low tech, inefficient motors.

I personally have a V8 that only revs to 3800. Its a caddy 500. 400 hp and 600 ft-lbs of torque seem to suit me well. You want technology? How about some of the best metallurgy choices I've seen since the M10 engine used in E30 BMWs. That 500 is in a 66 Bonneville that weighs 4500 lbs. If you put a 400 hp four cylinder in that car, no amount of revving will help you move 4500 lbs with 200 ft-lbs of torque that it would make. I also rebel a little against technology. You almost never see a message posted here that says, "help, my carb fell off." or "oh boy, my tires are bald." But all the time you see complex electronic problems where someone lost three dash lights and at the same time the engine started running rough. Now you're faced with six miles of wiring and three miles of vacuum lines, all of which could have a problem, and they would produce vastly different system failures. On a Bosch system it might just throw a code. On a GM it might trip it into limp mode. It might cause the door alarm to trip on a Nissan. The problem is that with that type of electronic failure, it doesn't have a clear-cut solution. It could be a resistor-based cascade effect like a bad ground.

At times like that I just think back to my 454 with three vacuum lines, (each under 5" long) four wires, and a carb. Talk about reliable. Even if something fails, its easily diagnosed, fixed for under $20, and easy to reach the alternator without disassembling the transmission. Front wheel drive is a whole other soapbox for me so I won't start into it

In all actuality, a 3.2 liter or larger V8 should be putting out twice as much or more horse than my car, a near stock Honda Civic. They should roast me, hardcore style. As it is, they only roast me. (It's a civic, it's not fast.)

Again, I disagree. The point of making V8s with larger displacements is not to make HP, win races, or roast anyone. The point is to make torque, and the best way to do that is keep it conservative. Sure you could take any engine and make tons of hp, but how long is that hp going to survive hanging from those little tiny rods and mains of a 1.6L four? I'd rather have the V8. You're still looking at things from a HP standpoint, and that is very market-driven. Having said that, there are plenty of high-hp V8s out there. OEMs don't explore that since there are insurance and safety issues. If you think about it, your 1.6L would be straining hard at 200 hp. If you had a 4.8 V8 (three times the displacement) it could support three times the HP; 600 hp, but there is no reason for it from the manufacturer. What is important from that 4.8 V8 has enough torque to move a truck, heavy car, or tow a trailer.

Also, I feel that gas mileage is part of the equation. I feel that if you race someone, and win, while getting better gas mileage, your car is that much superior to their's.

I don't think you can ever use mileage as part of a race winning spoil. Sure, there are civics that can beat my V8s and get 30 mpgs, but they weigh half as much. I get 25 mpgs from my LT1 that runs low 13s in a heavy Impala. I think that my 25 mpgs is more impressive than their 30 mpgs.

An engine is an engine. It ingests air and spits out hot air. In the process it makes power. Starting with more displacement gives you more options; you can tune it for low end torque or high end HP. With a small engine, you don't really have that choice on the road. If you tune it for low end torque, you're only making 50 hp. You also have to remember that inertial forces increase by the SQUARE of the RPM. A high revving engine is (in my opinion) a crutch for the fact that they couldn't fit more displacement in the engine. You take a small economy car with a four cylinder, then make it rev to the extremes of its capacity to make power that can be advertised in a sales brochure. Not my idea of high-technology. Its a band-aid fix.

Don't get me wrong; I also have a Yamaha R6. Redline is at 16,000 rpms and it makes 100 hp to the wheel. Not bad for a 0.6L engine. But the intense engineering that has to go into those rotating assemblies is crazy. They also don't last very darn long compared to automotive engines. My friend's 99 R6 has 30,000 miles and its already bleeding cylinder pressure bad enough that he can't synchro the carbs anymore.

You'll find a much more welcoming atmosphere if you do the following things; 1) post your messages in the appropriate forum. This really shouldn't be in engineering and technical, it should be in cars I love/hate or somewhere else. 2) feel free to post your opinions, but refrain from calling us "retarded," "stupid," or "an idiot," for not agreeing with your opinion. 3) Keep it light. Don't post absolutes like 4 cylinders are better. Post an opinion and back it up with fact. 4) Don't exaggerate; saying a small four cylinder engine can make 1200 hp on pump gas will just make you a laughing stock unless you can prove it. The engine to which you refer runs Methanol, is turboed, and lasts one pass on the strip before its completely trashed.

Otherwise, welcome to the forums and I hope you find it enjoyable.

[Aiden2002]

Four valves is better. With Variable Valve Timing, you can close one valve below a certain RPM. Horsepower moves cars. It's work done over time. Torque is an instantanious measurment. If my car didn't rev, then I wouldn't be driving with Horsepower.

If that 4 cylinder revs to 7600, which isn't that high, it can be geared twice as high. Thereby, changing the horsepower to ground by a factor of 2. That makes it have twice the horsepower to the ground than your motor. I pass you, even with you pregnant car. (For a better explaination go here http://www.yawpower.com/tqvshp.html) Also a caddy 500 is a 500 cubic inch motor right? that's about 8 liters. you should be putting out like 600 when it's tuned for fuel mileage. Tuned for speed it should be 1200-1600 with a turbo, at least 800 naturally aspirated.

I'm not afraid of electronics. I've been a nerd my whole life. I can understand how someone wouldn't want to tackle electronics because a few years ago I didn't want to tackle mechanics.

Any motor can rev high. In my opinion, they should. A motor with a large displacement is a crutch for not being able to engineer it well enough to rev.

I don't have anything against V8's. I have something against large displacement motors. It's wasteful. I know that OEM doesn't need to make alot of horsepower, but that doesn't mean they should use such huge motors.

Yes, high revving motors require more attention. 16,000 is freaking high. half that is a better number. Honda's B16 revs to 8200 and lasts quite a long time.

I multitask when i surf the net. I meant to post this in the hot or not section. My bad.

My opinions are based on physics and math. If you can't see why I have them, then, to me, you are retarded. I posted this thread originally as a way to vent. I normally wouldn't insult someone unless I'm very frustrated. Flaming someone on a forum is dumb. Proving them wrong with facts is what I like.

I never said 4 cylinders were better. In all actuallity, a V8 of the same displacement is better because it is capable of revving higher.

A 2JZ is a 3.0, straight 6 from Toyota. It comes the the Mark IV Supra. It can make 1200 hp on pump gas. See http://members.shaw.ca/turbofiero/index.htm (click on the 240sx 2JZ swap, then look at stage 7)

I don't just blow smoke.

[Moppie]

First of all this thread is closed.


Second of all, my comments are in red:

Originally Posted by Aiden2002

Four valves is better. With Variable Valve Timing, you can close one valve below a certain RPM. Horsepower moves cars. It's work done over time. Torque is an instantanious measurment. If my car didn't rev, then I wouldn't be driving with Horsepower.

No, and Yes. Variable Valve timeing alters when in the combustion cycle the vavles are open and closed.
Yes, with out torque you don't have HP, as Curtis mentioned HP is derived from Torque.

If that 4 cylinder revs to 7600, which isn't that high, it can be geared twice as high. Thereby, changing the horsepower to ground by a factor of 2. That makes it have twice the horsepower to the ground than your motor. I pass you, even with you pregnant car. (For a better explaination go here http://www.yawpower.com/tqvshp.html) Also a caddy 500 is a 500 cubic inch motor right? that's about 8 liters. you should be putting out like 600 when it's tuned for fuel mileage. Tuned for speed it should be 1200-1600 with a turbo, at least 800 naturally aspirated.

Try reading what Curtis wrote again.

I'm not afraid of electronics. I've been a nerd my whole life. I can understand how someone wouldn't want to tackle electronics because a few years ago I didn't want to tackle mechanics.

Any motor can rev high. In my opinion, they should. A motor with a large displacement is a crutch for not being able to engineer it well enough to rev.

You need to learn alot more about how an engine works, and how that work is applied before you make a statement like that.
For a start how high an engine revs is entirly relative. The work truch I drive redlines at only 3,400rpm. Thats very high for a 4.0L diesel truch motor. My Honda Prelude however redlines at at 6,500rpm. Thats quite low compared to my old Civic which went all the way to 8,200.
And all those numbers are very high compared to an oil burning engine in a large ship which may turn over at only 100rpm, or slower.

I don't have anything against V8's. I have something against large displacement motors. It's wasteful. I know that OEM doesn't need to make alot of horsepower, but that doesn't mean they should use such huge motors.

Read what Curis said again, large cars require lots of torque, the easiest and most efficant way to produce lots of torque is to use high displacement engines.
If you take the time to learn a little more before making false conclusions you will understand this


Yes, high revving motors require more attention. 16,000 is freaking high. half that is a better number. Honda's B16 revs to 8200 and lasts quite a long time.

Good point, but a B16a wound out to 8,200rpm is not a user friendly piece of machinery. Its very responsive to even the slightest throttle input, makes one hell of a lot of noise, use's a lot more fuel than it needs to, and at such high speeds puts huge amounts of stress on the gearbox and other drive line components.
Having driven one down the road for 3-400meters redlined in 1st I can tell you there is no way you would want to spend all day there.
Its nice for a quick thrill, and makes for some very impressive accleration, but the engine is only friendly and easy to drive when below 5,000rpm. At which point it only makes enough power to move something as light weight as a Honda Civic.
There is a reason the heavier Honda Prelude used a 2.2L engine, and the even heavier Honda Accord is avliable with a 3.2L engine.
The B16a is quite capable, with the right parts to reach 16,000rpm, and Honda has the resources to make it happen.
But would you want to buy an Accord that only got 10mpg, idled at 3,000rpm and had to be driven at 10,000+rpm?

I multitask when i surf the net. I meant to post this in the hot or not section. My bad.

My opinions are based on physics and math. If you can't see why I have them, then, to me, you are retarded.

Then your understanding of physics and maths is incomplete, Curtis based all his statements on physics, maths and experiance as an engineer. Hes right, your wrong.

I posted this thread originally as a way to vent. I normally wouldn't insult someone unless I'm very frustrated. Flaming someone on a forum is dumb. Proving them wrong with facts is what I like.

If you want to vent about something this is not the right place to do it. We have a stress release forum for that sort of behaviour.


And yes Flaming is dumb, calling an experianced and respected member of these forums a retard is just stupid.
Do it again and its grounds for a ban.
I suggest you aplogise to Curtis via a PM.


And I suggest you re-evulate your "facts" before you try to prove anybody else wrong.

EDIT: fixed red font