Italian styling + amerikan powerplants...

Discussion in 'European Cars' started by PandaBeat, Apr 27, 2006.

  1. I don't think the LS7 is all *that* much smaller or lighter than the Ferrari V8. If the specs are to believed, it's the Ferrari V8 that is noticeably lighter. They make pretty compact V8's too (though the LS7 probably has a lower CoG).

    Adenauer:
    That's only ONE way to measure efficiency. Unless you live in a country with displacement taxes, hp/l is a fairly useless barometer of efficiency, in terms of real-world results. An S2000 (now over half a decade old) makes more hp/l than the Ferrari V8. It is more "efficient" than the engine in an Enzo. Would you really want that kind of engine powering your Ferrari? Because of the real-world results and benefits? How about a motorcycle engine (160+ bhp/l), or an R/C car engine (~400 bhp/l)?
    Someone else could very well suggest that efficiency can be measured by manpower hours involved in making an engine (or materials used, etc), compared to its output...

    I don't see anything wrong with someone eating a Whopper with a glass of chianti. It's great to have that choice (even if it's not my personal preference).
     
  2. I do not see your point. Hp/L is a pretty useless effeciency. I could say that the LS7 only needs 16 valves to make 505hp, while the Ferrari needs 32 valves, see the LS7 is more effecient, but that would be a very dumb measurement. Both hp/l and hp/#valves are dumb ways to measure the effciency of an engine.

    Effeciencies that matter are things like hp/wieght, torque/wieght, or hp/volume.

    The LS7 is hardly an agricultural engine, in the same way that the Lambo is not agricultural. To say that the LS7 is agricultural is just as ignorant.
     
  3. You guys are running this discussion off the rails.
    I am very aware of the fact that racecar engines develop more bhp per litre than any roadcar. What I'm NOT aware of is how this fact contributes to the discussion. How is it that "Someone else could very well suggest that efficiency can be measured by manpower hours involved in making an engine (or materials used, etc), compared to its output..."?
    That is somewhat of an unusual way to measure engine effeciency. You suggest that because the LS7 probably took much less time to develop, it is more efficient... Okay, so if you make how much the engineers eat in their lunch brakes part of your equation, and find that the italians ate more during the development, you have proven that the LS7 to be even MORE efficient. Great.
    The efficiency thing was one of many points that I wanted to make. All to reach to the conclusion that European (in this case Italian) engines are sportier (more rev-happy, faster responses etc.) and advanced. As every other part of European sportscars is more advanced, say, the suspension (in effect: more expensive I know, BUT handles better and feels nicer). As must the engine be equally exotic and sporty.
    I know the LS7 in the Z06 is a bargain and great value for money. But that's not what we are discussing. We are discussing whether or not American engines fit into the Italian sportscar philosophy, and to give you my short answer, no.
     
  4. A smaller engine is lighter and a car like Corvette Z06 with its heavy V8 on the front wheels could never compete in handling with cars like F430 with its light V8 behind the seats. And, if we consider the technology in steering wheel and suspensions, American cars really sucks.
     
  5. The Ferrari V8 and the LS7 are within 10 pounds of eachother, the whole wieght argument is pretty mute. Also what steering technology do Italian cars have that corvettes do not?

    The 599 just got some very advanced dampner technology, too bad the corvette has been using the same system for 4 years already. So the 599 uses the same dampners and suspension design (A-arms), the only difference is that the corvette has arguably more advanced springs.
     
  6. Personally I believe that a good engine for a supercar must have its redline at least @ ~6700rpm. Torque must be very well distributed in (nearly - to be more realistic) all revs with the peak coming at high revs (+/-5000rpm).
     
  7. Did you read his posts? he gave those efficiency examples to show how absurd your hp/l really is. Rev's doesn't neccesairly mean sporty, there is a reason why they lowered the revs on the s2000 to give it more tq and make give it a more usable powerband. The LS7 is very advanced and well engineered, just because it uses a different philosophy of efficiency(power efficiency) does not make it inferior due to its more simplistic approach.
     
  8. hp/L isn't efficiency.
     
  9. Adenauer

    "We are discussing whether or not American engines fit into the Italian sportscar philosophy, and to give you my short answer, no."

    I agree that American engines don't fit the Italian sportscar philosophy as well as Italian engines do, but we are discussing more than that, and you are too. You discussed efficiency and specific output. The rest of us are merely discussing what you already discussed.
     
  10. You make my eyes bleed.

    Where the hell are you getting your info from. So far, you have been wrong on all counts.
     
  11. The LS7 weighs slightly more than the F430's engine, but it evens out when you consider the weight of the fuel load. The F430 uses a lot more fuel.

    It's true that midengine cars usually handle better than front engine cars, but some people prefer front engine overall. Look at the SL and the XK8. There are plenty of great handling front engine sportscars, including the Z06. The Z06 can and does compete with the handling of the F430. It seems to handle better on the track if you look at the lap times, and Top Gear said that it's stable over bumps too.
     
  12. adenauer:
    Nothing about my post is taking this discussion off the rails, anymore than what you've written. Someone could very well think of efficiency in that way. That is just one of MANY ways of looking at efficiency (if you're so ready to dismiss out of hand things like fuel economy, power density, etc). If Ferrari dumped the equivalent of their F1 budget ($400M+?) on improving the current V8 and got another 20 horses, would you find that impressive? Would that be "efficient" engineering? Of course, you'd think so. We don't have to examine what they ate for lunch, but we still get a pretty good idea of what kind of efficiency that is.
    The problem with examining hp/l is that you HAVE to concede that the R/C car engine is better. You HAVE to concede that the S2000 engine is better. You HAVE to concede that the motorcycle engine is better. You'd also have to concede that the Italian engines take a back seat to any number of Japanese and German turbocharged engines. (Who cares if it's not normally aspirated?; all you referenced was hp/l.) You'd have to concede things I'm sure you'd prefer not to. Yet I don't see you doing it. Why's that? Too ashamed to admit you'd rather have your Enzo powered by an R/C car engine?
    Wow, so your "efficient" engine might weigh more, might cost a shedload more money to develop and produce (and maintain), might occupy more space, might return poorer fuel economy. But hey, it's more "effecient"...so long as you're at WOT. LOL, congrats.
    The problem with your examination of "efficiency" is that it takes into consideration ONLY peak hp, and ignores the rest of the powerband. This totally ignores the real-world experience one feels when driving a car, as hp/l tells you absolutely squat about how fast a car is, what it feels like.

    There was once a guy named Giotto Bizzarini. Perhaps you've heard of him. He was invited by Renzo Rivolta (maybe you've heard of him too) to test drive a prototype vehicle (later became the Gordon Keeble) with a Corvette 327. His impression:
    "It was my first time driving one, and I was shocked. It was superior to Ferrari's engines, offering the same power with more immediate throttle response."
     
  13. haha pwn, although I'm sure that this will go way over his head.
     
  14. #139 jon140, May 4, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    This is getting ridiculous !

    Screw the definition of effeciency...who has the full answer to that? There are too many factors to consider, if we go into development and all that. You go on and on about adenauers "choice of words", eg bhp/l. As he says, it is only PART of the reasoning behind his answer. But you choose to ignore that, so you can prove him "wrong" with little details, what he HAS to concede and what not. Im sure he realises that bhp/l doesnt tell you that a car is fast. Contrary to your statement, it does tell you that the engine will rev high, have little low end torque, etc. etc.... ("the feel of the engine"). Also, who cares if Bizzarini made that statement. Its his personal opinion, proves nothing, cant be discussed. It could be false for all i know. Also, it was a long time ago.

    I think the bottom line here (regarding the question of the topic) is that guys like adenauer (and myself) like their italian styled sportscar with a high revving engine (eg. ferrari v8), which because of its short stroke, low inertia, lightweight internals, multivalve design, mulitiple cams, variable this and that, trick exhaust valves, and generally utilising every new technology availiable, sounds(agressive, temperamental, building gradually to a crescendo howl at high revs) and feels (revs fast, drop revs fast, has a progressive build up of torque and power)... well...EXOTIC and sporty. It befits our view of how a European/Italian sportscar should be. It may not have torque to pull a train, it may not be easy on the fuel, it may be more expensive, it may have taken more time to develop... blah blah. The point is that it, for this purpose (assuming we agree on this: to propel an Italian styled, relatively lightweight, preferably mid engined, Rwd sportscar) it is, in our view, superior to an American v8. Even if its the incredible, oft referred to ls7.

    Now, what i read between the lines (i might be wrong) is that guys like Guibo and others (Americans?) are afraid to admit that American engine (well...automotive, really) design always have, and probably always will be playing catch up to the European/Japanese. It is no lie when adenauer states that European/Italian engines are more advanced and sophisticated. They are! Technical innovations in engine design usually come from Europe/Japan too. There are of course exceptions, but they serve only to confirm the rule. Take for example the "engine awards", how many US engines wins a category...ill tell you - none.

    http://www.ukintpress.com/engineoftheyear/

    Its nothing to be ashamed of, just a different philosophy (and engineering capability?). Your motoring tradition is basically trucks and hot rods. Stop denying the obvious!

    *Flamesuit on*
     
  15. #140 mpg, May 4, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Read my sig. DaVinci would disagree with you.
     
  16. HEHE funny you should say that. Having recently been studying the renaissance (as part of a school project) and seen the Da vinci museum in Vinci, Italy, i would say that its a funny statement coming from him. If you consider all the things he dabbled with: Dissecting bodies, painting, sculpting, writing, engineering and inventing stuff among other things. Most of his drawings and various inventions for the building and military industry, are what i would call pretty complex, but i guess somehow also based on simple ideas... but getting flamed by Da Vinci... i couldnt handle that.
    But luckily he isnt here right now, is he?
     
  17. Heres the "automobile" for you then, designed by Da Vinci:
    Edit: Pretty effecient too, minimal developement costs, uses no fuel.
     
  18. american powerplants should have american cars.
     
  19. tru that...the day they have an american car with an italian engine hell will freeze over...italian engine are built for cars that are actually worth something
     
  20. Now thats what i like to hear...
     
  21. The point is; it's stupid to spend millions on research and add massive amounts of complexity, only to end up exactly where you were with a low cost, low maintenance pushrod engine. When I say "exactly where you were", I'm not just talking about power. I'm talking about power, fuel efficiency, weight, and the overall dimensions of the engine. I'm not saying that American engines are better for Italian cars than Italian engines. The sound of a high revving engine goes great with the styling and overall personality of Italian cars, but that's totally different from saying "guys like Guibo and others (Americans?) are afraid to admit that American engine (well...automotive, really) design always have, and probably always will be playing catch up to the European/Japanese. It is no lie when adenauer states that European/Italian engines are more advanced and sophisticated." American engines aren't playing catch up. They chose a low cost philosophy instead of adding complexity that doesn't achieve anything except for adding complexity.
     
  22. This is a personal preference, but I prefer Italian engines because they are more responsive when mated to a manual gearbox and I just love how the engines sound at high revs. Ferrari and Lambo are good of course but even Fiat, Lancia and Alfa have some pretty sweet sounding engines.

    Now that I am in America, I find that the engines are better suited to automatic gearboxes that prefer to shift at a lower rev than I would prefer. Since the computer does the shifting, engine response doesn't really matter, but I can't help but feel that these cars feel incredibly clumsy.

    Its hard to directly compare the two because its very subjective. In real life, cars are mere transportation so as long as the car goes it doesn't really make a difference. I think this is a deepy subjective matter. My friends have no problem at all driving American cars and neither do I. Its just that I miss having a clutch and a feisty engine.

    I think its better if Italian cars have italian engines and American cars have american engines. That fact that they are different makes it interesting.
     
  23. haha, you assume that because it went way over your head !
     
  24. excellent post
     
  25. obviously
     

Share This Page