more hp with more displacement

Discussion in '2002 Ferrari 360 GT' started by 51coronet, Nov 13, 2002.

  1. Re: more hp with more displacement

    Ok, I'd like to withdraw an ignorant comment before I get hazed for it. The price I listed was from a prepared 360 rather than a stock 346 LS1. The stock LS1 retails at $5990 American.

    I concede. GM is a better buy than Honda.
     
  2. Re: more hp with more displacement

    You should check out the November 2002 issue of Road & Track for more info on the 360 GT and it's capabilities. You state that the 360 GT engine "is basically at it's max N/A tune as far as power output goes." You should know that the 360 GT that we're talking about actually has air intake restrictors on it. These restrictors are so...restrictive? that they only allow HALF of the air to enter that would normally travel through the throttle bodies to reach the cylinders. This means that the little Ferrari engine is being choked and is definitely capable of cranking out many more ponies than we are seeing here. By the way the reason for these air restrictors are the regulations they have to follow to apply to FIA horsepower standards.
     
  3. Re: more hp with more displacement

    There are restrictors, but still, to say that they stop HALF of the air which would otherwise be used is not true, as then the car would have over 800 hp. According to specs, the car currently makes 265 lb/ft of torque at itŽs peak hp rpm, which isnŽt too shabby for a 3.6 L - thus it doesnŽt suffer much of a choking at itŽs designed power band. Going up from those 400+ hp levels will of course cause a rapid drop in power increase, but thatŽs the restrictorŽs purpose.

    There would of course be some power gain removing the restrictors, but getting some serious results (going above 500 hp) would also require revving up the engine more, which would require revised valvetrain and other mods. How would the present powerplant handle these mods, is however completely another story.
     
  4. Re: more hp with more displacement

    I'd Just like to thank all who provided worthwhile input to this thread. Thank you for not making this the typical ignorant thread that we have all seen here on sc.net.
     
  5. Re: more hp with more displacement

    OK, so, forum closed, here's the consensus:

    Smaller engines are better.

     
  6. Re: more hp with more displacement

    Ferrari's philosophy is to incorporate F1 technology into their road cars, that's why Ferrari choses to have these (relatively) high reving small engines than big engines with sluggish torque figures.
     
  7. Re: more hp with more displacement

    what? The best way to get good torque from an engine is to increase displacement.
     
  8. Re: more hp with more displacement

    NO! Engines are only as good as the application they are used for.
    Would you use a small engine in a large diesel truck that needs to haul extremely heavy loads?
    Engine sizes have applications. Would you put a 5.7 liter engine on a lawnmower? For all out power a big engine will always put out more power than a small engine provided its an all out effort in both cases and the parts to achieve the goal are available. The fastest dragsters in the world are powered by large engines that pump out approximately 6000 horses. A small engine could not do that. There is just not enough fuel and air volume to make that kind of power in a small engine.
     
  9. Re: more hp with more displacement

    Ok, but duh - if a guy from a planet Wulcanium arrived here and you would present him the following:

    Engine 1:

    405 hp / 400 lb/ft
    Daily driving 19/28 mpg
    Cheap, durable

    Engine 2:

    400 hp / 275 lb/ft
    Daily driving 10/16 mpg
    Expensive, less durable

    Which engine would that guy most likely choose to be the "better" one? OK, I'll let you explain him "the exlusiveness factor", "hp/l bragging rights" and even "tifosi passion", but since the dude arrived here doing warp 10 with a space ship, I still don't think he would be that impressed. <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/cboardhtml/emoticons/wink.gif"></A>
     
  10. Re: more hp with more displacement

    I must tell you I loved this post!! Interesting way to shed some light.
     
  11. Re: more hp with more displacement

    I didn't deny that, did I?
     
  12. Re: more hp with more displacement

    cool car
     
  13. Re: more hp with more displacement

    Then what were you trying to say?
     
  14. Re: more hp with more displacement

    this car is designed for road racing, not drag racing. in addition the stock 360 modean is a 3.6L and rules regualte that all GT cars must have a production model variant. in addition all ferraris are high revving with this one being sourced from a retired formula one engine. a car that produces good low end torque has a harder time breathing on the top end which is where this car stays the majority of its time in (the 7000-9000 rpm range). there really no use for low ned torque in a road racing car. don't believe me? even NASCAR vehicles rev to 9000 rpm even though they use pushrods (a small miracle in itself). also the suspension on this car and chassis is EXTREMELY stiff and hte flywheel has very little inertia. the hugeness of torque would not connect and could be in fact detrimental to the overall performance of this car. stiff suspension designed for road racing do not make for good quarter mile times when compared to cars more prepped for drag racing or straight line speed. lastly did you check the weight of this car? why would you need that much torque to apply force to a car that weighs less than a corolla.
     
  15. Re: more hp with more displacement

    ok I dont think anyone called it a drag racer. And notice the nascar cars use a (5.? liter) engine, I'm suggesting that ferrari up the displacement and make more power through the entire rpm band. Nothing wrong with that idea but if the race rules limit displacement then I have nothing to suggest. For any street car low end torque is always beneficial provided the tires and gearing are properly set up.

    Good low end torque engines usualy suffer at higher rpms because of the fact that the cams used in them generaly are not designed to rev past 6000 rpm. For a street car this is a perfect idea since 99% of driving takes place between 2,000 and 3,000 rpms. Having the most torque output in that range and still rev to 6000 rpm is a nice balance for a street machine.
     
  16. Re: more hp with more displacement

    In europe you get taxed a lot for large displacement engines, not that anyone who can afford a ferrari should really care. I agree hp/liter doesn't mean a whole lot, but hp/weight does and they are related. I'm pretty sure ferrari made the bore and stroke as large as possible to minimize the engine size already, so increasing displacement wouldn't be as easy as you say. And by focusing on the high rev appoach ferrari can learn a lot more abut engine design than if they just slapped some extra cyllnders on there. Some of the new 600cc bike engines coming out of japan make close to 150hp, in a lightweight car (westfield, lotus, etc) these could perform amazingly well for low cost.
     
  17. Re: more hp with more displacement

    ok, this has little to do with the car, but any1 who praises a small engine over a bigger 1 is insane. the smaller 1 has to be highly tuned just to compete with the larger 1. put the same stuff on a larger engine.........it would crush any smaller engine. displacement.....man displacement. but yeah, for a road car, this car's power is way to high up in the rpms. but whatever, doubt many ferrari drivers are out to beat any1 at the stop light or drag strip
     
  18. Re: more hp with more displacement

    most people that drive ferraris never clock about 6000 miles on the car. the reason most cars that have good low end torque suffer on teh top end is beucase usually these cars are 2 valve/litre FGI manifold pushrod engines, which have better flow velocity in the low rpms. the ferrari if you pay attention with the small 3.6L engine or even the bmw m3 (another high revving car) has an extremely flat torque curve, although certainly it is not as high as one provided by a larger displacment engine, the torque figure is certainly impressive for a car with displacement of such size. in addition, a smaller engine could offer better balance, and considering the various camshaft timing profiles, and variable this variable that (throttle bodies, manifolds, etc..) i dont think that ferrari should really 'up' the displacment on this car. i really think its fine the way it is. you said that a car with better low end torque is better provided its geared the right way. a car that has high revs is 'better' provided its geared the right way as well! there are limits to gearing depending on revs as well. besides if you looked at the horsepower equation

    hp = torque x revs/5252, a massive amount of torque only generates an extreemly large horsepower figure when placed above the 5000 revs. since hte rev # (mathematically) is always larger than the torque number and it is divided by a constant (5252), it makes more a difference to influence a number that can be increased by the thousands, rather than one that can be influenced by tens or thousands. i am not saying that tuning the torque curve is not instrumental to engien development, because it is very important, but large low end torque figures are only good if they can carry on such efficiency throughout. i'm pretty sure that everyoone would agree that torque is good, but it should be as flat as possible, not unevenly distributed throughout the revving range, and this is something that this ferrari does very well.
     

Share This Page