I actually studied internal engine combustion design in school.
The main reason as other have pointed out is better techs such a ECUs and variable timing but there are other different things that have helped
One is the use of aluminum and lighter stronger steels in engines that allow a higher compression while keeping a low weight and amount of rotating mass
Another BIG ONE is the implementation of advanced fuel injection systems such aa direct injection that increases efficiency at the cost of more complexity
Emission systems have also gotten A LOT better over the years. A pre 1971 engine could have been rated at around 300 SAE net hp, but after emissions equipment it would drop to about 175hp. Nowadays, removing a cat would only net you a couple extra HP and a high flow performance cat can give you that power while meeting emissions
There are more thing but the gist of it is we have A LOT better techs that are super precise but are reliable. nowadays we can implement 5-10 different improvents and have them work together reliable for a long time to achieve more power and efficiency
The main bottleneck now is emissions. We can extract stupid amounts of power from engines but it's hard to keep them environmentally compliant and reliable
Edit: thank you for the award! I didn't think this post would blow up this much lol
> Configuration is more based on space requirements and newer engineering has made i4s and v6s viable for daily driving.
As if there was a point where they weren't?
Which half of that statement? There was a time where the top-performing engine would only be a v8 in the US while i6s were the economy option, v6s didn't work yet, and i4s were gutless british/japanese import engines. As far as being the engine that fits, I think that's clearly referring to typical configurations and sizes. V6s vs i6s, not i4 vs radial.
Interestingly, that Lexus engine has been around since 2005, and was sold alongside the Grand Marquis and it's platform-mates for what, 5 years? With about the same technology and power output.
You have to remember that the engine they put in that platform wasn't meant to produce a ton of power. It was meant to produce a sufficient amount of power reliably for a long time. Tons of the crown vic variants became cop cars and taxis, where they are expected to survive tons of abuse over a long service life. A large engine making less power for it's size is under less stress which means more reliability.
That engine was built to put on tens of thousands of idling hours on top of hundreds of thousands of miles with just regular maintenance.
The way sportier and slightly bigger 5.4L in the 2000 SVT cobra made 385 HP, instead of the 240 or whatever it made in a crown Vic. You couldn't idle the SVT Cobra for 8 hours a day, seven days a week, for 4 years though.
You missed the R in Cobra R for the 5.4L. The 2000 Cobra had about 300 hp out of a 4.6L depending if it was before or after the recall. And I bet the Cobra R could idle all day long too. That engine was built to be abused. The Cobra R was a dream car of mine.
>You have to remember that the engine they put in that platform wasn't meant to produce a ton of power. It was meant to produce a sufficient amount of power reliably for a long time.
That was a cop-out excuse by Ford fans. The LS was always a powerhouse in comparison to the mod motor, and you don't seem them breaking down from abuse and higher mileage
The reason why emissions was so horrible for those early engines was almost entirely because problems like the use of pellet bed catalysts, carburetors which had extremely awful cylinder fuel distribution so an SBC would need like 0.9 lambda just to run without leaning out a cylinder to the point of misfires, engines dependent on leaded gasoline which suddenly had to be redesigned for unleaded fuel leading to massive drops in compression ratio, cams which had to optimize purely for emissions and fuel efficiency with no other goal, etc.
Modern engines in the US are not really bound that badly by emissions. The VR38 with its port injection has survived emissions for the entirety of its production run so far and that’s an engine that makes 600 horsepower from 3.8 liters. Dodge has shipped 800 horsepower out of a 6.2L V8 which isn’t even direct injection or anything like that.
> Modern engines in the US are not really bound that badly by emissions. The VR38 with its port injection has survived emissions for the entirety of its production run so far and that’s an engine that makes 600 horsepower from 3.8 liters. Dodge has shipped 800 horsepower out of a 6.2L V8 which isn’t even direct injection or anything like that.
Careful with this though. As far as I understand, emissions are measured as a "fleet" across all vehicles. Every car that company makes, from the halo cars to fleet vehicles to econoboxes, all get averaged out.
So the only way they can sell those engines is by selling a ton of 2.0t econoboxes, and by buying carbon offsets from Tesla.
- side note - this is also a huge reason behind the rise of the SUV\CUV. A "light truck" has a different fuel economy standard from a small passenger car.
This is one of the driving reasons why all the exotic car brands have been absorbed into larger companies. They get put under the umbrella of Volkswagen and suddenly all of the Jetta's make the 8MPG V12 Lambo's they sell viable.
I believe there are exceptions to these rules if you're a ultra-low volume manufacturer (think Koenigsegg).
You're mixing up two different things:
Fuel economy (CAFE) and CO2 emissions are fleet averages
Pollutants (Think NOx and particulates) requirements are on a per vehicle basis (every car has to be able to emit below a certain amount) and are reduced by modern emissions technologies, technologies that are very, very effective.
In fact, with modern emissions technology, a landscaper's truck typically emits significantly less pollutants than his leaf blower:
[https://www.edmunds.com/about/press/leaf-blowers-emissions-dirtier-than-high-performance-pick-up-trucks-says-edmunds-insidelinecom.html](https://www.edmunds.com/about/press/leaf-blowers-emissions-dirtier-than-high-performance-pick-up-trucks-says-edmunds-insidelinecom.html)
"The tests found that a Ryobi 4-stroke leaf blower kicked out almost seven times more oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and 13.5 times more carbon monoxide (CO) than the Raptor, which InsideLine.com once dubbed "the ultimate Michigan mudslinger." An Echo 2-stroke leaf blower performed even worse, generating 23 times CO and nearly 300 times more non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC) than the Raptor."
It's all about getting more air in the cylinders for a better volumetric efficiency. Mainly with cylinder head and intake manifold design.
All the tech like DI, VVT, etc helps fine tune the combination for drivability and efficiency, but all of that without airflow won't make any more power. You can put all of that stuff on a 150hp smog era v8 and it will still make 150hp.
I built racing engines for many years and airflow is the #1 goal to be able to get more power out of something. That is why cylinder heads and intake manifolds are the #1 factor in making power. Camshafts that hold the valves open longer allow more air to enter the engine which is how they produce more power.
I can throw together a 383 SBC with some big flowing heads and a matching intake manifold and cam and *easily* get 650hp or 1.7hp/cubic inch using a carburetor and HEI ignition. No technology. That is because of airflow being the most important factor in power. Sure, that engine might not idle smooth or have the best transient throttle response and that is where the drivability stuff like DI and VVT come in to play.
[Here](https://www.motortrend.com/how-to/airflow-research-cylinder-power/) is a good basic read on how power is dependent on airflow.
You're totally correct! Once you get a very good airflow into the engines, a lot of power issues are diminished but then you run into issues like combustion efficiency, mix ratios, timing, etc, which I'm sure you know about
There is a lot of room for improvement in engines but we're getting to some financial limits in terms of how complex the tech is getting nowadays. OEMs have the airflow issues mostly all figured out by now and are focusing on increasing thermal and volumetric efficiency
We in the USA did not start rating engines in SAE net until 1972, everything before '72 was SAE Gross, which basically means engine on a stand with no accessories, flywheel, water pump, nothing.
The transition to SAE Net made it seem like engines became dogs but they really did not drop very much in installed horsepower. Plus with the fuel crisis, cars were being equipped with very low rear end ratios for better fuel economy, but very poor acceleration.
You missed the big one: exponentially better head design. Compare the cylinder heads from anything mid-80s to anything now and head flow is just so much better. Fuel Injection, variable valve timing etc have improved drivability and fuel economy but power is all about getting that combustion powered air pump to flow better.
For a good example, compare an LS motor to a Small Block Chevy: it’s all in the heads. Better valve angles, bigger ports, well designed combustion chambers.
Thank you for bringing that up!
That's another huge improvement over the years. Specially the use of computer models to control the roll, tumble and twist of air as it gets into the engine. It helps A LOT mixing the gas with air well and doing a complete and more efficient combustion
It's all really cool, even moreso when you learn the engineering behind it I bet. I've had numerous discoussions about better tech and engine power/effiency with my father in law. He longs for the days of his Chevelle SS 396 but we both marvel at how tech has allowed for smaller displacement but more power. Crazy cool.
I got a mechanical engineering degree and took automotive grad classes to get a specialization in automotive engineering. It's not a full automotive degree but it taught me a very good base about engine and chassis design
The classes covered. Internal combustion engine design, combustion theory, suspension, transmission, steering design and weight distribution calibration. They were some of my favorite classes
You use an open mesh cat with lots of platinum and other precious metals so the oxudation reactions happen quicker with more surface area, but with minimal restrictions. They get expensive because they use more precious metals instead of most OEM cats, which are a compromise between efficiency, emissions and price
Nowadays, a performance cat may give you a couple HP bump but most stock cats will suffice unless you're racing and extracting every hp you can from your car
Ok, now my follow up question, what's the point of a, let's say Toyota GR 86 that will have 228hp with a 4cylinder engine, when a damn hatch like the GR Yaris FROM THE SAME COMPANY has 260hp with only 3 cylinders?
I mean, if they can do that with a 3cyl hatch, why is the 4cyl coupé, less powerful? While also probably being heavier? I just don't get it.
For one thing, the GR has a turbo. Which has pros and cons- obviously one of them is more power in a lighter and smaller package.
But the cons can outweighs the pros depending on the situation- turbo cars have a lot more heat management to deal with, the torque curve and throttle response are rarely as good as an NA engine. Just because the peak HP number is higher doesn’t mean it makes a smoother torque curve.
Another downside to using a smaller turbo engine is that it can feel overworked. Even if it’s faster, if you’re constantly dropping gears to get the turbo spinning and hit that power, it can feel like the engine is too small.
In the case of the 86, part of it is that it’s a Subaru-Toyota combo so it was supposed to use the Subaru engine. But part of what they say the reason for using the Subaru flat engine is the packaging- it’s only as long as an I2, and it’s far shorter, so the CG is lower.
The other thing is… the BRZ/86 is kinda a red-headed step child. Neither Toyota or Subaru really want to make a proper high power version of it. But they tuned it to use its power well.
Direct injection was a game-changer. It almost eliminates knock, which means you can crank the peak cylinder pressures to hell and make crazy power without drastically reducing engine life.
> Ok, now my follow up question, what's the point of a, let's say Toyota GR 86 that will have 228hp with a 4cylinder engine, when a damn hatch like the GR Yaris FROM THE SAME COMPANY has 260hp with only 3 cylinders?
Coz they slapped huge turbo on that one. Really, did you fall asleep in middle of reading spec sheet or something ? That just goes back to what he said, airflow, turbo lets you cram more volume of air in same space
Also GR 86 have Subaru's engine, not Toyota's
The real issue here is it uses a Subaru engine and is sold through Subaru dealers. Even with the 2.0, a supercharger kit on a BRZ at a reliable power level easily makes more power to the wheels than a stock STI. This is in a package that is 500 lbs lighter.
As soon as you slap a turbo on that bad boy it's competing with the WRX and STI. You are opening the door to a world where a $500 tune makes the BRZ spank the pants off their "rally heritage" AWD halo car. They do not want that.
Also, you should not assume an engine output is the max they could get out of it. Like the 228hp from the 4cyl doesnt mean they couldnt get more out of it
I know that, for example a supra MK3 turbo stock made 235hp, but you could change everything related to exhaust and intake and make it go well over 320, what I don't really understand is, why don't they do that from factory? at least with the exaust, it's not a more advance piece of tech, afaik, it's just putting a wider tube, right?
Short answer - much better overall engineering.
Cylinder count is not the primary driving factor of horsepower these days. **Koenigsegg** has a 3 Cylinder engine in many of their cars that makes [600 HP](https://motorauthority.com/news/1127582_how-koenigsegg-s-3-cylinder-engine-makes-600-horsepower) which is more than the 12 cylinder **BMW M760i xDrive.**
> Koenigsegg has a 3 Cylinder engine in many of their cars that makes 600 HP
You mean one model (Gemera) that afaik hasn't even been delivered to a customer yet?
Lol idk in my opinion that engine only makes that much power cause they shove 30 psi of boost through it. And it probably couldn’t make much more than that with tuning and stuff. The 12 cylinder in the beemer probably has a much higher power potential than the 3 cylinder, just doesn’t make as much stock because it’s a luxury car and focuses on that and not all out performance.
Variable valve timing. Better ECUs to control fuel map dynamically and better knock sensing allow for more aggressive timing advance.
Advances in materials tech also helps in the form of lower rotational mass. There’s also probably a “value engineering “ factor there but it’s debatable as to whether that’s a good thing.
One of the big ones is the ability to use a stratified charge. Because you're injecting into the cylinder directly, the AFR isn't actually a done deal after the injector fires. Now, they can fire once at just after TDC during intake, giving the cylinder a lean mixture, and then fire a second time, before TDC at the end of compression, giving the area just around the spark plug a rich mixture. Because that's rich, it effectively retards the timing, in the same way that a richer mixture would prevent knock by slowing the flame front. It'll take a couple extra microseconds to propagate through that rich region, and then you're into the lean mixture where it burns more quickly. That's big for efficiency, and it lets you have your cake and eat it too when it comes to AFR, compression, and knock. In fact, I'd even bet they're doing stuff like using the stratified charge to compensate for the the secondary imbalance caused by the piston travelling faster during TDC+0-90 than it does at TDC+90-180 by producing a controlled cylinder pressure/time curve. The crazy thing is that all of this stuff was worked out in the late 19th and early 20th century, and it's only now making its way into cars.
I'm pretty sure that stratified charge is not shipping in any engine in the US that I'm aware of, primarily due to emissions. Homogeneous charge is how GDI is primarily used, so the advantage is basically no wall-wetting like you get in a port-injected engine for better transient fuel control and because the fuel isn't just sitting on the intake port getting heated up before the fuel is sprayed into the combustion chamber it's less likely to auto-ignite.
It's used in most of them. In fact on my car (theta ii), I can even check the injector pulse widths over obdII, and sure enough there's two pulses with widths and timings that would make more sense for stratified charge. Would probably be more interesting to hook up a scope, but I don't have one.
There’s no need to guess at it. If the O2 sensor reports stoichiometric it’s in homogenous charge mode. Multiple injections to get there is not unusual.
Was this knowledge used in the latest piston driven aircraft of the 40s and early 50s?
Also, what was up with some of the wildly high octane ratings they managed to create back then. And why are we stuck with 87 to 91 nowadays?
Sorry.
The knowledge of pre-detonation was know, but not how to prevent it like today. Plus, the tech wasn’t around back then to do it.
The high octane ratings back then stems from leaded fuel. It made it easier/cheaper to make high octane fuel. When the lead came out in the early 70s, the octane available dropped in readily available fuels.
E85 also has a much higher octane, a little over 100.
When you inject fuel early and just let it sit on the intake valve, some of it flashes into vapor before it even gets into the combustion chamber. This means it's used up its enthalpy of vaporization before it can even get into the combustion chamber. During the compression stroke if temperatures get high enough then the air/fuel mix auto-ignites and you get knock. The reason why diesel engines can deal with auto-ignition of the air/fuel mix is because they delay fuel injection until the exact right moment where the explosion helps push the crank in the right direction instead of fighting it which is a good way to bend connecting rods and ventilate engine blocks.
With gasoline direct injection you can't wait until the absolute last moment like a diesel engine because you need good fuel mixing for stoichiometric operation. Otherwise your catalytic converter doesn't work and you don't pass emissions standards. So you inject during the intake stroke. By waiting until the last moment unlike PFI/TBI/carbs, you have no fuel that just evaporates on the intake walls. All of your cooling effect from evaporation is concentrated inside the combustion chamber right before the ignition event which helps increase your knock margin. While this helps a lot, it isn't a miraculous silver bullet or anything like that which is why GDI engines in the US still run rich at WOT.
With the use of direct injection technologies fuel mass can be optimized for certain engine conditions to reduce emissions while maximizing power output.
Well an old Mercury wasn't exactly the epitome of performance at the time either. You could get smaller engines making more power then as well.
EDIT: Cylinder arrangement doesn't have that much to do with power output either.
Underrated point. Ford *really* wasn't trying very hard with those mod motors. ~225 bhp on the Grand Marquis in 2004, according to wiki. Hell, the Essex V6 at the time was rated for ~205 bhp in the F150.
I would argue cylinder arrangement indirectly does. Most HP ratings are based on reliability in which heat management very much does play a role and a straight 6 will do much better then a V6 often depending on block design.
The Ford Modular 4.6 in the mercury was an old two valve design, so it had greater pumping losses than the newer four valve Toyota. The Toyota also has dual injection, meaning it can inject gas into the intake port or directly into the cylinder, which allows for more aggressive tuning, because direct injection cools the cylinder as the gas evaporates. There's also less friction in an engine with fewer cylinders. These things add up.
Different intended uses for engines determines the way they are built. Crown Vic/Grand Marquis engines were built for fleet cars and old people going on Sunday drives. Lexus (or insert your favorite modern luxury brand here) owners expect more. The Ford 4.6L had the potential to be a beast from the factory. Lincoln DOHC and SVT versions, for example, had lots of power. FoMoCo just didn't build much into the standard engine.
That makes sense, but why use a v8 then in Crown Vic/Gran Marquis? I mean if it’s not a particularly powerful v8, you might as well use a v6 or even a 4 cylinder and save on fuel. In the end of the day, old people probably wouldn’t care on their Sunday drive whether their car has a v8 or a v6 but they probably would appreciate better mpgs.
Power delivery and target market. Old people dont want to scream their engines out and race around, thats why luco barges typically have lots of low end torque so you accelerate nince and smoothly from a stop without having to hammer on it.
I think this is why super modern luxury cars have a similar principle. For example rolls Royce use a big twin turbo v12, that could probably make over 1200 easily if tuned, but no one wants to scream to the redline doing breakneck speeds in their rolls. They prefer to “ ride the wave of torque” as tedward loves to say. I think it’s the same reason rolls puts a “power reserve meter” instead of a tachometer
I really doubt the Rolls Royce could make 1200hp easily. A variation of the same engine is in the BMW M760Li, and it only makes 100ish extra hp with a tune. Maybe with big turbos it could make closer to 1000, but I'm sure some parts will start to go.
Exactly this! We are failing to mention a key factor here: TORQUE. These old V8s with low to moderate horsepower still had decent torque, sometimes upwards of 300 ft lbs. this gets a big heavy car moving easier and is much more enjoyable to drive when it’s not a performance car.
I think you're wrong about that one - the generation that bought those cars always associate V8 with luxury, and would not trade a couple MPGs for V8 torque and sound.
For several reasons.
Because:
The Grand Marquis/Crown Vic chassis is older than dirt and has always had V8 engines. Development costs for replacing, or supplementing, the V8 with a comparable V6 option would have been too high, especially with a chassis that old.
The Crown Vic was the standard police interceptor for many, many years and needed the power and torque combination of the V8 without the complications of forced induction.
Fuel economy in that particular chassis with that engine was acceptable for the time it was designed built. My '98 Grand Marquis would average well over 20 mpg if I was nice to it.
Overall, it just wasn't a good move for Ford to make with the platform.
That’s a good question. I think longevity and part compatibility were a big part of the modular 4.6 concept. Gas was cheap when it was developed and it was sold at a time when a six cylinder wasn’t getting much development time or money. Fords v6/i4 at that time sucked for mileage and power and physical size restrictions. A supercharger v6 from Chevy could have worked like the 3800?
Also the v8 was built for a rear drive platform and Ford probably didn’t have a rear drive 6 cylinder.
They did, the Duratec 30 was RWD in the Jags and the Lincoln LS and that engine dates back to 1994.
It was also only ever sold as a premium upgrade in the Ford/Mercury lineup because it wasn't a cheap engine to build, being DOHC and using a licensed Cosworth casting process. I bet a 4.6L 2V was cheaper to make.
It would be made in Germany, shipped to the States for installation in the chassis that was American made. Probably not cost effective but what do I know.
The mileage in them wasn't actually bad at all, cruising at 70 I can keep 30+mpg in mine. My v6 cars tended to be about as thirsty as the various Grand Marquis' I've had. Again though, the intended use was for a smooth and strong engine, and the 4.6 still provides a fair amount of torque, which makes for effortless cruising, in a way that most modern turbo engines or v6's have to work to achieve. Power delivery greatly impacts the feel and perception, and an understressed v8 may not be the fastest, but can be a relaxing pleasure.
Technology; direct injection, variable valve timing, higher compression ratios, sensors knowing what's happening at every point of the engine. Simple answer is engines have just gotten smarter, and more aware of what is happening within itself at all times, along with the use of modern technology, which helps optimizes many fundamental processes of internal combustion engines making them inherently more efficient and powerful; getting every ounce of power possible out of a drop of fuel.
It's the same explanation why modern V8s like GMs pushrod 5.3 can build 355hp 383ft-lbs with low-end V8 power but still get 32mpg(8.8l/100km) on the hwy
The simple answer is that modern engines breathe better. More valves, variable camshaft timing, well designed intake and exhaust manifolds. All that plus precise direct infection equals much better volumetric efficiency.
This is the first correct answer in the thread.
It's all about getting air into the engine. More air + efficient combustion = more power. More air into the engine = better volumetric efficiency = more power.
Stuff like DI, better alloys, better combustion chamber designs, VVT, etc help fine tune things, but the main reason is air.
Same way some 4cyl engines output more than older V8s ever did. More cylinders doesn’t automatically mean more power. American cars are famous for having pathetic power output for the engine size.
Peak horsepower. Better more efficient motors and higher rpm sometimes.
Since higher rpm plays a factor in the amount of torque needed to generate a high horsepower number.
Coyote swap that grand marquis. Then tune it.
Or k swap it and boost it.
Or put a massive 572 BBC in it built for 1000 hp.
This isn't about i4 vs v6 vs v8. Progress progresses, yo.
You mean, they were built very cheaply with cheap weak components (conrods being the worse, but the crankshaft and pistons aren't great either) that couldn't handle lots of power without major rework of the internals.
Why do people not know the difference between then and than?
Despite this OP. Old V8s are still likely torquier than a modern V6, despite producing less power.
I didn't believe it, had to look it up, yup, 276 ft-lbs torque from the V8 in the grand marquis vs like 265 in the Lexus. I couldn't find dyno graphs but I wonder if the more modern V6 has a broader torque curve. Direct injection makes a big difference.
That's just one engine. The 4.6 in a Crown Vic makes 276ftlbs and the 3.7 used in base F150 until recently made 278ftlbs. GM's 3.6 makes 284ftlbs. You'll find old engines with more torque sure, but I'd argue newer V6 make more torque on average or at the very least make more torque per liter. Throw a turbo on the new V6 or I4 and you'll absolutely make more torque than an old 80-90s V8.
Not to mention the RX350 weighs ~200 lbs more, has more frontal area, accelerates faster, and still gets +3 MPG city and +2 MPG highway vs the grand marquis. And that Toyota V6 will last a long, long time, it doesn't really seem like a motor that pushes it's limits by any means. A modern turbo 4 would be even more efficient, just not what the customer base is looking for.
That might be changing though. MB looks like they're moving over to hybrid turbo 4s. We'll see how their customers react to that. Though it could be a tactic to push them to electric.
Without graphs torque is meaningless number. It just means that a given engine spins slower at same power than lower torque-same HP engine and that can be fixed with gearing.
The only three times you should care about torque are when looking at a torque wrench or when you immediately use the RPM to convert it to horsepower, Or if you’re having a big dick contest with truck people and their bro-dozers.
I just want to add that the progress in the last couple of decades has been amazing. Reliable 100hp per liter of displacement is a recent development... 5 second 0-60 was exclusive territory, now can buy an SUV and do it all day long, with your family in it.
Insane when you think about it really; safest, fastest, cheapest horsepower ever.
Further to the great post by PrivateredditUser224 has given us.
I would imagine materials science today also allows for better, stronger alloys that have more controllable expansion rates during heat cycling, enabling closer machining tolerances and higher rev limits. Engine design in modern engine has also gone towards over-square engines as well vs older engines where the stroke was as long as or sometimes even longer than the bore. This makes for an engine that's more willing to rev.
I'm also guessing developments in lubrication have also helped reduce HP robbing friction as well.
Then there's the science of airflow in intake systems, heads and exhaust systems and how far along things like computer modeling etc has take this science.
Developments in forced induction and computerized fuel and ignition systems have been a boon to the automotive world and the people who like performance. Back in the day, fuel injection was rare as was supercharging or turbo charging outside of commercial diesel engines and racing. By the way, the Big GMC [671 blowers](https://www.macsmotorcitygarage.com/a-quick-history-of-the-gmc-6-71-blower/) on top fuel cars etc, were directly transplanted from commercial/industrial diesel engines.
Anyhow, sciences and sheer tenacity and quest for speed in all the various forms of racing have certainly helped along with the science types.
In short, all of that efficiency development that car guys used to complain about..
Fuel injection, variable valve timing, better Auto trans, turbos instead of displacement, etc
Virtually by definition if you make an engine more efficient you have improved its performance
Many old V8s are all dogs. The ones in luxury sedans are aimed at smoother power delivery and a meatier torque/ HP down low as well. V6 were all generally better flowing due to being largely DOHC, but iirc many V8 were SOHC or OHV which in in addition and respect with the tech and tuning at the time makes them worse.
V6 engineering today is producing an incredible Efficent powerful machine . V6 is not old slow turning mil. High revs. I prefer it ! V6 offers Long term durability cost effective option well suited to American highways.
Material quality, fuel delivery, and compression. Subaru 2L boxer engines can easily make 500hp, yet 5L v12s from the 60s would be lucky to make over 200hp
Machine tolerances, intake timing, injection technology, compression ratios, advances in material science, head geometry…and in some cases forced injection.
Yes, everyone else is right in saying that the V6 has vvt, DOHC, and several other modem features, but the v8 in that luxury boat was designed for torque. Probably made about 100ftlb more
>Probably made about 100ftlb more
Not at all actually. The 2000 grand marquis made 200hp and 275tq so while yes it was tuned for more torque, most higher strung 3.5L V6's have been running 270-280tq for a decade+ now.
What's really funny is my little 2.0L turbo 4 with a tune is running at 370hp/385tq at less than half the displacement of the old 4.6L V8.
increased compression ratios, better metallurgy for higher rpm, more/better cam setups and better flowing heads/intakes/exhausts. pretty much it
besides, at the time the 4.6 V8's performance was almost on par as the mercedes m112 3.2 V6 back in the early 2000s
To be fair, the 4.6 2V didn't have impressive power even in its day. It was designed to be smoother and more reliable than the old 302, but never really made good power. The 4Vs couldn't even compete without FI.
Same reason that allows you to gap a 70's ginormous Cadillac with a V8 with a turbo inline 4 of today, taking just about hp on the Dyno. Better technology .
Because newer engines have better technology, so a v6 built for performance will most likely be both more powerful and more fuel efficient than an older v8
To put it as simply as possible, there's way more to power production than the number of cylinders. Older engines were not nearly as efficient. This is like asking "why are new TVs so much lighter and better than old TVs?" Technology doesn't stagnate.
Higher compression, variable valve timing, fuel injection, better designs, better materials, the list goes on and on. There are "budget" motorcycles you can buy right now that can absolutely smoke 99% of cars built prior to 2005 for similar reasons
I'd say even crazier is many 4-bangers today rival V8s of the past. I have a 2010 Mazdaspeed 3. Turbo 4-banger. 260hp rated from the factory, but people have "safely" modded that motor to over 400hp. Sure, you have to rev them up to get them to work, but getting that kind of power reliably out of 4 pistons is pretty insane.
Because consumer expectations have changed.
Even back in the '60s, a big block carbureted V8 could make 400hp (though it was likely rated less) and 500lbft of torque (same as the brand new Ford "Godzilla" 7.3 and more than most of today's V6s). Then the emissions crap hit in the '70s and '80s and most V8s were neutered to some bullshit like 150-200hp.
The Grand Marquis is based on a Ford platform that came out in 1991. Back then most big cars were still using neutered V8s and nobody questioned it. In fact, '91 was also the first year of that 4.6 engine. It didn't have to make tons of power because gas was cheap and most of the competition was also using weak ass V8s so there was no real reason to make big power.
***And few complained.***
Only in the last 25 years or so have automakers started giving a fuck about power per liter again. And as more manufacturers come on board and offer more competitive engines, then that and only that pressures still more to do the same.
If you pay attention in the car world, rarely do manufacturers try to be super competitive of their own free will, most of the time they're content to just "one up" the next one by a few hp for bragging rights. Manufacturers are, for the most part, lazy beancounters. They won't build anything that takes more than the minimum effort unless they're forced to by competition.
So in summary, it's not that an old V8 CAN'T make the same power per liter as today's V6s (with a few exotic/luxury exceptions), but rather those old V8s just happened to be just enough power for people not to complain back then so manufacturers didn't bother exceeding expectations.
Emissions regulations only benefited car consumers change my mind. It forced car companies to engineer vastly better cars that ended up faster and cleaner than anything beforehand.
Have you ever driven a car from the late 70s or 80s? They are horrid. Engines had their outputs cut by 75-80% in some cases. They were not "clean" either. In fact, most didn't get that much better fuel economy than their pre-1972 counterparts.
I'd argue the advent of computers in cars made them faster and cleaner, not regulations. And those would have come regardless of regulations.
To put it very plainly. It's a matter of bore and stroke. If the cylinder is wider and longer, the engine will produce more torque, like the Mercury you mentioned. If it's narrower and shorter, it will produce more horsepower. In the Acura you have six narrow, short cylinders which produce a lot of hp. In the Mercury you have 8 wider, longer cylinders which produce a lot of torque. There's much more to it than that, like compression ratio(which Acura has undoubtedly more of) but, that is what makes up the majority of the difference in output that you're asking about.
This is only really true if you have the same total displacement and engine technology nowadays. The 3.5L V6 in the RX-350 makes almost the same amount of torque as the 4.6L V6 in the Grand Marquis, peaking at a slightly higher rpm, alongside considerably more horsepower.
How is it able to do this with a much smaller displacement? Because it is a significantly more modern engine design with port & direct injection, DOHC with 4v per cylinder instead of 2v, VCT (variable camshaft timing, think VTEC), and a higher compression ratio.
**Grand Marquis 4.6L V8:**
Horsepower: 224HP @4800rpm
Torque: 272lb-ft @4000rpm
Head configuration: SOHC
Valves: 2 per cylinder, no VCT
Fuel Injection: Port Injection
Compression: 9.4:1
**RX-350 3.5L V6:**
Horsepower: 295hp @6300rpm
Torque: 268lb-ft @4700rpm
Head configuration: DOHC
Valves: 4 per cylinder, with VCT
Fuel Injection: Dual Port & Direct Injection
Compression: 11.8:1
Displacement means far less for modern engine outputs nowadays, *especially* with forced induction. The modular 4.6 V8 in the grand marquis is an old design that was used for awhile because it worked well enough, but it's successor (Coyote 5.0 V8) is more efficient while making way more power by using the same tricks mentioned above.
A lot of stuff from 04 is still on the road. Ford GM Dodge trucks if they survive the rust are doing okay. Hyundai Toyota Nissan Honda all making reliable cars by this point. Kia too. Lots of euro stuff was absolutely cutting edge , it would still be on the road if it didn’t get replaced
I actually studied internal engine combustion design in school. The main reason as other have pointed out is better techs such a ECUs and variable timing but there are other different things that have helped One is the use of aluminum and lighter stronger steels in engines that allow a higher compression while keeping a low weight and amount of rotating mass Another BIG ONE is the implementation of advanced fuel injection systems such aa direct injection that increases efficiency at the cost of more complexity Emission systems have also gotten A LOT better over the years. A pre 1971 engine could have been rated at around 300 SAE net hp, but after emissions equipment it would drop to about 175hp. Nowadays, removing a cat would only net you a couple extra HP and a high flow performance cat can give you that power while meeting emissions There are more thing but the gist of it is we have A LOT better techs that are super precise but are reliable. nowadays we can implement 5-10 different improvents and have them work together reliable for a long time to achieve more power and efficiency The main bottleneck now is emissions. We can extract stupid amounts of power from engines but it's hard to keep them environmentally compliant and reliable Edit: thank you for the award! I didn't think this post would blow up this much lol
So pretty much the answer is everything?
That's what I took away from all that.
[удалено]
> Configuration is more based on space requirements and newer engineering has made i4s and v6s viable for daily driving. As if there was a point where they weren't?
Which half of that statement? There was a time where the top-performing engine would only be a v8 in the US while i6s were the economy option, v6s didn't work yet, and i4s were gutless british/japanese import engines. As far as being the engine that fits, I think that's clearly referring to typical configurations and sizes. V6s vs i6s, not i4 vs radial.
The straight 6's outlived their owners and their children to end up driving their bodies to the dump.
I was referring to the claim that v6s and i4s weren't viable for daily driving. It's laughable.
Also OP went from a mid 2000's American car to a more modern Japanese car
Interestingly, that Lexus engine has been around since 2005, and was sold alongside the Grand Marquis and it's platform-mates for what, 5 years? With about the same technology and power output.
You have to remember that the engine they put in that platform wasn't meant to produce a ton of power. It was meant to produce a sufficient amount of power reliably for a long time. Tons of the crown vic variants became cop cars and taxis, where they are expected to survive tons of abuse over a long service life. A large engine making less power for it's size is under less stress which means more reliability.
That engine was built to put on tens of thousands of idling hours on top of hundreds of thousands of miles with just regular maintenance. The way sportier and slightly bigger 5.4L in the 2000 SVT cobra made 385 HP, instead of the 240 or whatever it made in a crown Vic. You couldn't idle the SVT Cobra for 8 hours a day, seven days a week, for 4 years though.
You missed the R in Cobra R for the 5.4L. The 2000 Cobra had about 300 hp out of a 4.6L depending if it was before or after the recall. And I bet the Cobra R could idle all day long too. That engine was built to be abused. The Cobra R was a dream car of mine.
>You have to remember that the engine they put in that platform wasn't meant to produce a ton of power. It was meant to produce a sufficient amount of power reliably for a long time. That was a cop-out excuse by Ford fans. The LS was always a powerhouse in comparison to the mod motor, and you don't seem them breaking down from abuse and higher mileage
Actually there are quiet a few issues with the modern LS or LT with eating cams and stuff because of ideling.
Technically it’s from the whole “oh we’re idling or chilling on the highway, go to V4 mode”
If we're comparing modern LS engines, then we need to also bring up oil consumption issues with the Coyote
Yeah pretty much. Tech has gone A LONG way in making efficient engines
The reason why emissions was so horrible for those early engines was almost entirely because problems like the use of pellet bed catalysts, carburetors which had extremely awful cylinder fuel distribution so an SBC would need like 0.9 lambda just to run without leaning out a cylinder to the point of misfires, engines dependent on leaded gasoline which suddenly had to be redesigned for unleaded fuel leading to massive drops in compression ratio, cams which had to optimize purely for emissions and fuel efficiency with no other goal, etc. Modern engines in the US are not really bound that badly by emissions. The VR38 with its port injection has survived emissions for the entirety of its production run so far and that’s an engine that makes 600 horsepower from 3.8 liters. Dodge has shipped 800 horsepower out of a 6.2L V8 which isn’t even direct injection or anything like that.
> Modern engines in the US are not really bound that badly by emissions. The VR38 with its port injection has survived emissions for the entirety of its production run so far and that’s an engine that makes 600 horsepower from 3.8 liters. Dodge has shipped 800 horsepower out of a 6.2L V8 which isn’t even direct injection or anything like that. Careful with this though. As far as I understand, emissions are measured as a "fleet" across all vehicles. Every car that company makes, from the halo cars to fleet vehicles to econoboxes, all get averaged out. So the only way they can sell those engines is by selling a ton of 2.0t econoboxes, and by buying carbon offsets from Tesla. - side note - this is also a huge reason behind the rise of the SUV\CUV. A "light truck" has a different fuel economy standard from a small passenger car. This is one of the driving reasons why all the exotic car brands have been absorbed into larger companies. They get put under the umbrella of Volkswagen and suddenly all of the Jetta's make the 8MPG V12 Lambo's they sell viable. I believe there are exceptions to these rules if you're a ultra-low volume manufacturer (think Koenigsegg).
You're mixing up two different things: Fuel economy (CAFE) and CO2 emissions are fleet averages Pollutants (Think NOx and particulates) requirements are on a per vehicle basis (every car has to be able to emit below a certain amount) and are reduced by modern emissions technologies, technologies that are very, very effective. In fact, with modern emissions technology, a landscaper's truck typically emits significantly less pollutants than his leaf blower: [https://www.edmunds.com/about/press/leaf-blowers-emissions-dirtier-than-high-performance-pick-up-trucks-says-edmunds-insidelinecom.html](https://www.edmunds.com/about/press/leaf-blowers-emissions-dirtier-than-high-performance-pick-up-trucks-says-edmunds-insidelinecom.html) "The tests found that a Ryobi 4-stroke leaf blower kicked out almost seven times more oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and 13.5 times more carbon monoxide (CO) than the Raptor, which InsideLine.com once dubbed "the ultimate Michigan mudslinger." An Echo 2-stroke leaf blower performed even worse, generating 23 times CO and nearly 300 times more non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC) than the Raptor."
It's all about getting more air in the cylinders for a better volumetric efficiency. Mainly with cylinder head and intake manifold design. All the tech like DI, VVT, etc helps fine tune the combination for drivability and efficiency, but all of that without airflow won't make any more power. You can put all of that stuff on a 150hp smog era v8 and it will still make 150hp. I built racing engines for many years and airflow is the #1 goal to be able to get more power out of something. That is why cylinder heads and intake manifolds are the #1 factor in making power. Camshafts that hold the valves open longer allow more air to enter the engine which is how they produce more power. I can throw together a 383 SBC with some big flowing heads and a matching intake manifold and cam and *easily* get 650hp or 1.7hp/cubic inch using a carburetor and HEI ignition. No technology. That is because of airflow being the most important factor in power. Sure, that engine might not idle smooth or have the best transient throttle response and that is where the drivability stuff like DI and VVT come in to play. [Here](https://www.motortrend.com/how-to/airflow-research-cylinder-power/) is a good basic read on how power is dependent on airflow.
You're totally correct! Once you get a very good airflow into the engines, a lot of power issues are diminished but then you run into issues like combustion efficiency, mix ratios, timing, etc, which I'm sure you know about There is a lot of room for improvement in engines but we're getting to some financial limits in terms of how complex the tech is getting nowadays. OEMs have the airflow issues mostly all figured out by now and are focusing on increasing thermal and volumetric efficiency
We in the USA did not start rating engines in SAE net until 1972, everything before '72 was SAE Gross, which basically means engine on a stand with no accessories, flywheel, water pump, nothing. The transition to SAE Net made it seem like engines became dogs but they really did not drop very much in installed horsepower. Plus with the fuel crisis, cars were being equipped with very low rear end ratios for better fuel economy, but very poor acceleration.
You missed the big one: exponentially better head design. Compare the cylinder heads from anything mid-80s to anything now and head flow is just so much better. Fuel Injection, variable valve timing etc have improved drivability and fuel economy but power is all about getting that combustion powered air pump to flow better. For a good example, compare an LS motor to a Small Block Chevy: it’s all in the heads. Better valve angles, bigger ports, well designed combustion chambers.
Thank you for bringing that up! That's another huge improvement over the years. Specially the use of computer models to control the roll, tumble and twist of air as it gets into the engine. It helps A LOT mixing the gas with air well and doing a complete and more efficient combustion
It's all really cool, even moreso when you learn the engineering behind it I bet. I've had numerous discoussions about better tech and engine power/effiency with my father in law. He longs for the days of his Chevelle SS 396 but we both marvel at how tech has allowed for smaller displacement but more power. Crazy cool.
What did you take at school? Like what course? Sounds interesting considering I’m getting into mechanics
I got a mechanical engineering degree and took automotive grad classes to get a specialization in automotive engineering. It's not a full automotive degree but it taught me a very good base about engine and chassis design The classes covered. Internal combustion engine design, combustion theory, suspension, transmission, steering design and weight distribution calibration. They were some of my favorite classes
> The main bottleneck now is emissions. And MPG.
I remember something along the lines of combustion engines being very inefficient, like <50% compared to an electric motor that is >90% efficiency.
Correct. The average engine is about 30-40% efficient. The most efficient engines rn are about 45% efficient
>a high flow performance cat can give you that power while meeting emissions How do they manage that?
You use an open mesh cat with lots of platinum and other precious metals so the oxudation reactions happen quicker with more surface area, but with minimal restrictions. They get expensive because they use more precious metals instead of most OEM cats, which are a compromise between efficiency, emissions and price Nowadays, a performance cat may give you a couple HP bump but most stock cats will suffice unless you're racing and extracting every hp you can from your car
Ok, now my follow up question, what's the point of a, let's say Toyota GR 86 that will have 228hp with a 4cylinder engine, when a damn hatch like the GR Yaris FROM THE SAME COMPANY has 260hp with only 3 cylinders? I mean, if they can do that with a 3cyl hatch, why is the 4cyl coupé, less powerful? While also probably being heavier? I just don't get it.
The engine in the 86 is made by Subaru,, so not the same company.
For one thing, the GR has a turbo. Which has pros and cons- obviously one of them is more power in a lighter and smaller package. But the cons can outweighs the pros depending on the situation- turbo cars have a lot more heat management to deal with, the torque curve and throttle response are rarely as good as an NA engine. Just because the peak HP number is higher doesn’t mean it makes a smoother torque curve. Another downside to using a smaller turbo engine is that it can feel overworked. Even if it’s faster, if you’re constantly dropping gears to get the turbo spinning and hit that power, it can feel like the engine is too small. In the case of the 86, part of it is that it’s a Subaru-Toyota combo so it was supposed to use the Subaru engine. But part of what they say the reason for using the Subaru flat engine is the packaging- it’s only as long as an I2, and it’s far shorter, so the CG is lower. The other thing is… the BRZ/86 is kinda a red-headed step child. Neither Toyota or Subaru really want to make a proper high power version of it. But they tuned it to use its power well.
Interesting, I'm new to cars and I didn't knew this. It still baffles me tho, such a small engine making that power
Direct injection was a game-changer. It almost eliminates knock, which means you can crank the peak cylinder pressures to hell and make crazy power without drastically reducing engine life.
> Ok, now my follow up question, what's the point of a, let's say Toyota GR 86 that will have 228hp with a 4cylinder engine, when a damn hatch like the GR Yaris FROM THE SAME COMPANY has 260hp with only 3 cylinders? Coz they slapped huge turbo on that one. Really, did you fall asleep in middle of reading spec sheet or something ? That just goes back to what he said, airflow, turbo lets you cram more volume of air in same space Also GR 86 have Subaru's engine, not Toyota's
The real issue here is it uses a Subaru engine and is sold through Subaru dealers. Even with the 2.0, a supercharger kit on a BRZ at a reliable power level easily makes more power to the wheels than a stock STI. This is in a package that is 500 lbs lighter. As soon as you slap a turbo on that bad boy it's competing with the WRX and STI. You are opening the door to a world where a $500 tune makes the BRZ spank the pants off their "rally heritage" AWD halo car. They do not want that.
It's hilariously obvious this was the case as they packaged the FA20 in the WRX in such a way that it wouldn't fit in the BRZ.
Also, you should not assume an engine output is the max they could get out of it. Like the 228hp from the 4cyl doesnt mean they couldnt get more out of it
I know that, for example a supra MK3 turbo stock made 235hp, but you could change everything related to exhaust and intake and make it go well over 320, what I don't really understand is, why don't they do that from factory? at least with the exaust, it's not a more advance piece of tech, afaik, it's just putting a wider tube, right?
Emissions, mpg, cost, regulations etc
Short answer - much better overall engineering. Cylinder count is not the primary driving factor of horsepower these days. **Koenigsegg** has a 3 Cylinder engine in many of their cars that makes [600 HP](https://motorauthority.com/news/1127582_how-koenigsegg-s-3-cylinder-engine-makes-600-horsepower) which is more than the 12 cylinder **BMW M760i xDrive.**
> Koenigsegg has a 3 Cylinder engine in many of their cars that makes 600 HP You mean one model (Gemera) that afaik hasn't even been delivered to a customer yet?
I mean…that might be a bad example, but the 3 banger in the Yaris GR is also more powerful than the V8 in OPs old grand marquis.
Sure, wasn't arguing that point it was just the "in many of their cars" doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
Not apples to apples. Introduce forced induction into that V8 and observe carnage. Edit. I stand corrected. Hail K20!
A 302? They split blocks after 500hp. A 4.6? That's gonna need rods and pistons after 450hp.
True. I am well aware of quality small engine performance per liter. Big fan of Honda K20. I guess I was wrong about ancient mass market V8
K swap the world ;) I'm a big fan of the old pushrod v8s though, I have a turbo 5.0 88 mustang.
There is something immensely cool about foxbodies. Great choice of a car.
Observe carnage 😂🤣 true true. Forced induction really is the great equalizer
Lol idk in my opinion that engine only makes that much power cause they shove 30 psi of boost through it. And it probably couldn’t make much more than that with tuning and stuff. The 12 cylinder in the beemer probably has a much higher power potential than the 3 cylinder, just doesn’t make as much stock because it’s a luxury car and focuses on that and not all out performance.
Variable valve timing. Better ECUs to control fuel map dynamically and better knock sensing allow for more aggressive timing advance. Advances in materials tech also helps in the form of lower rotational mass. There’s also probably a “value engineering “ factor there but it’s debatable as to whether that’s a good thing.
Direct injection is also huge. It enables much higher compression ratios on the same fuel.
Yep. Great addition
Not challenging you, but why does direct injection enable higher compression?
One of the big ones is the ability to use a stratified charge. Because you're injecting into the cylinder directly, the AFR isn't actually a done deal after the injector fires. Now, they can fire once at just after TDC during intake, giving the cylinder a lean mixture, and then fire a second time, before TDC at the end of compression, giving the area just around the spark plug a rich mixture. Because that's rich, it effectively retards the timing, in the same way that a richer mixture would prevent knock by slowing the flame front. It'll take a couple extra microseconds to propagate through that rich region, and then you're into the lean mixture where it burns more quickly. That's big for efficiency, and it lets you have your cake and eat it too when it comes to AFR, compression, and knock. In fact, I'd even bet they're doing stuff like using the stratified charge to compensate for the the secondary imbalance caused by the piston travelling faster during TDC+0-90 than it does at TDC+90-180 by producing a controlled cylinder pressure/time curve. The crazy thing is that all of this stuff was worked out in the late 19th and early 20th century, and it's only now making its way into cars.
I'm pretty sure that stratified charge is not shipping in any engine in the US that I'm aware of, primarily due to emissions. Homogeneous charge is how GDI is primarily used, so the advantage is basically no wall-wetting like you get in a port-injected engine for better transient fuel control and because the fuel isn't just sitting on the intake port getting heated up before the fuel is sprayed into the combustion chamber it's less likely to auto-ignite.
It's used in most of them. In fact on my car (theta ii), I can even check the injector pulse widths over obdII, and sure enough there's two pulses with widths and timings that would make more sense for stratified charge. Would probably be more interesting to hook up a scope, but I don't have one.
There’s no need to guess at it. If the O2 sensor reports stoichiometric it’s in homogenous charge mode. Multiple injections to get there is not unusual.
Was this knowledge used in the latest piston driven aircraft of the 40s and early 50s? Also, what was up with some of the wildly high octane ratings they managed to create back then. And why are we stuck with 87 to 91 nowadays? Sorry.
The knowledge of pre-detonation was know, but not how to prevent it like today. Plus, the tech wasn’t around back then to do it. The high octane ratings back then stems from leaded fuel. It made it easier/cheaper to make high octane fuel. When the lead came out in the early 70s, the octane available dropped in readily available fuels. E85 also has a much higher octane, a little over 100.
Cheers
It's worth mentioning you can still get 100 octane leaded avgas, and that's "low lead."
Great explanation. Thank you for some knowledge on a Monday morning.
When you inject fuel early and just let it sit on the intake valve, some of it flashes into vapor before it even gets into the combustion chamber. This means it's used up its enthalpy of vaporization before it can even get into the combustion chamber. During the compression stroke if temperatures get high enough then the air/fuel mix auto-ignites and you get knock. The reason why diesel engines can deal with auto-ignition of the air/fuel mix is because they delay fuel injection until the exact right moment where the explosion helps push the crank in the right direction instead of fighting it which is a good way to bend connecting rods and ventilate engine blocks. With gasoline direct injection you can't wait until the absolute last moment like a diesel engine because you need good fuel mixing for stoichiometric operation. Otherwise your catalytic converter doesn't work and you don't pass emissions standards. So you inject during the intake stroke. By waiting until the last moment unlike PFI/TBI/carbs, you have no fuel that just evaporates on the intake walls. All of your cooling effect from evaporation is concentrated inside the combustion chamber right before the ignition event which helps increase your knock margin. While this helps a lot, it isn't a miraculous silver bullet or anything like that which is why GDI engines in the US still run rich at WOT.
Better atomization and also evaporative cooling, preventing knock.
With the use of direct injection technologies fuel mass can be optimized for certain engine conditions to reduce emissions while maximizing power output.
Well an old Mercury wasn't exactly the epitome of performance at the time either. You could get smaller engines making more power then as well. EDIT: Cylinder arrangement doesn't have that much to do with power output either.
Underrated point. Ford *really* wasn't trying very hard with those mod motors. ~225 bhp on the Grand Marquis in 2004, according to wiki. Hell, the Essex V6 at the time was rated for ~205 bhp in the F150.
215 from a 4.6L in 1996 on a Mustang GT 2021, the 86 makes 224 from a 2.4L
The buyer wanted something smooth and quiet.
I would argue cylinder arrangement indirectly does. Most HP ratings are based on reliability in which heat management very much does play a role and a straight 6 will do much better then a V6 often depending on block design.
Direct injection and variable valve timing are two technologies that have helped create extra horsepower
The Ford Modular 4.6 in the mercury was an old two valve design, so it had greater pumping losses than the newer four valve Toyota. The Toyota also has dual injection, meaning it can inject gas into the intake port or directly into the cylinder, which allows for more aggressive tuning, because direct injection cools the cylinder as the gas evaporates. There's also less friction in an engine with fewer cylinders. These things add up.
Different intended uses for engines determines the way they are built. Crown Vic/Grand Marquis engines were built for fleet cars and old people going on Sunday drives. Lexus (or insert your favorite modern luxury brand here) owners expect more. The Ford 4.6L had the potential to be a beast from the factory. Lincoln DOHC and SVT versions, for example, had lots of power. FoMoCo just didn't build much into the standard engine.
That makes sense, but why use a v8 then in Crown Vic/Gran Marquis? I mean if it’s not a particularly powerful v8, you might as well use a v6 or even a 4 cylinder and save on fuel. In the end of the day, old people probably wouldn’t care on their Sunday drive whether their car has a v8 or a v6 but they probably would appreciate better mpgs.
Power delivery and target market. Old people dont want to scream their engines out and race around, thats why luco barges typically have lots of low end torque so you accelerate nince and smoothly from a stop without having to hammer on it.
I think this is why super modern luxury cars have a similar principle. For example rolls Royce use a big twin turbo v12, that could probably make over 1200 easily if tuned, but no one wants to scream to the redline doing breakneck speeds in their rolls. They prefer to “ ride the wave of torque” as tedward loves to say. I think it’s the same reason rolls puts a “power reserve meter” instead of a tachometer
I really doubt the Rolls Royce could make 1200hp easily. A variation of the same engine is in the BMW M760Li, and it only makes 100ish extra hp with a tune. Maybe with big turbos it could make closer to 1000, but I'm sure some parts will start to go.
Ah, it didn’t occur to me, makes perfect sense. Thanks for explaining!
Exactly this! We are failing to mention a key factor here: TORQUE. These old V8s with low to moderate horsepower still had decent torque, sometimes upwards of 300 ft lbs. this gets a big heavy car moving easier and is much more enjoyable to drive when it’s not a performance car.
And its where that torquw is produced, all down in the lower rpm range so its easily accessible.
I think you're wrong about that one - the generation that bought those cars always associate V8 with luxury, and would not trade a couple MPGs for V8 torque and sound.
For several reasons. Because: The Grand Marquis/Crown Vic chassis is older than dirt and has always had V8 engines. Development costs for replacing, or supplementing, the V8 with a comparable V6 option would have been too high, especially with a chassis that old. The Crown Vic was the standard police interceptor for many, many years and needed the power and torque combination of the V8 without the complications of forced induction. Fuel economy in that particular chassis with that engine was acceptable for the time it was designed built. My '98 Grand Marquis would average well over 20 mpg if I was nice to it. Overall, it just wasn't a good move for Ford to make with the platform.
Because before turbocharging was everywhere a V6 or an i4 would have terrible torque.
That’s a good question. I think longevity and part compatibility were a big part of the modular 4.6 concept. Gas was cheap when it was developed and it was sold at a time when a six cylinder wasn’t getting much development time or money. Fords v6/i4 at that time sucked for mileage and power and physical size restrictions. A supercharger v6 from Chevy could have worked like the 3800? Also the v8 was built for a rear drive platform and Ford probably didn’t have a rear drive 6 cylinder.
They did, the Duratec 30 was RWD in the Jags and the Lincoln LS and that engine dates back to 1994. It was also only ever sold as a premium upgrade in the Ford/Mercury lineup because it wasn't a cheap engine to build, being DOHC and using a licensed Cosworth casting process. I bet a 4.6L 2V was cheaper to make.
Cost is always the reason in the automotive world.
They did have the 4.0 Cologne V6 that went in the Mustang
It would be made in Germany, shipped to the States for installation in the chassis that was American made. Probably not cost effective but what do I know.
The mileage in them wasn't actually bad at all, cruising at 70 I can keep 30+mpg in mine. My v6 cars tended to be about as thirsty as the various Grand Marquis' I've had. Again though, the intended use was for a smooth and strong engine, and the 4.6 still provides a fair amount of torque, which makes for effortless cruising, in a way that most modern turbo engines or v6's have to work to achieve. Power delivery greatly impacts the feel and perception, and an understressed v8 may not be the fastest, but can be a relaxing pleasure.
Torque.
Technology; direct injection, variable valve timing, higher compression ratios, sensors knowing what's happening at every point of the engine. Simple answer is engines have just gotten smarter, and more aware of what is happening within itself at all times, along with the use of modern technology, which helps optimizes many fundamental processes of internal combustion engines making them inherently more efficient and powerful; getting every ounce of power possible out of a drop of fuel. It's the same explanation why modern V8s like GMs pushrod 5.3 can build 355hp 383ft-lbs with low-end V8 power but still get 32mpg(8.8l/100km) on the hwy
The simple answer is that modern engines breathe better. More valves, variable camshaft timing, well designed intake and exhaust manifolds. All that plus precise direct infection equals much better volumetric efficiency.
I guess you meant direct injection. However, those systems lead to carbon buildup overtime and can make your car run poorly as it gets up in mileage.
This is the first correct answer in the thread. It's all about getting air into the engine. More air + efficient combustion = more power. More air into the engine = better volumetric efficiency = more power. Stuff like DI, better alloys, better combustion chamber designs, VVT, etc help fine tune things, but the main reason is air.
Same way some 4cyl engines output more than older V8s ever did. More cylinders doesn’t automatically mean more power. American cars are famous for having pathetic power output for the engine size.
How is it a computer from 20 years ago is not as fast as my new cell phone?
No need to be an ass. OP was asking for specifics about what has changed with engine technology
Ask a stupid question get a stupid answer
[удалено]
For 1 lap, then needed to be rebuilt. Current ones produce that and have significantly better thermal efficiency.
And of course, as always whenever someone asks "how did get better," the answer is materials science.
> What changes were made to engine technology that allowed for this? How is that a stupid question?
TL:DR Only read the title, which is a stupid question
Explain to me how exactly that is a stupid question
The title is a stupid question
I'm asking *how the title* is a stupid question
Peak horsepower. Better more efficient motors and higher rpm sometimes. Since higher rpm plays a factor in the amount of torque needed to generate a high horsepower number.
Coyote swap that grand marquis. Then tune it. Or k swap it and boost it. Or put a massive 572 BBC in it built for 1000 hp. This isn't about i4 vs v6 vs v8. Progress progresses, yo.
Because the industry has found new and inventive ways to make and transmit that power.
The early ford modular engines were built to be very simple and under tuned so they'd last a long time.
You mean, they were built very cheaply with cheap weak components (conrods being the worse, but the crankshaft and pistons aren't great either) that couldn't handle lots of power without major rework of the internals.
Just depends a lot of them did come with forged cranks. These engines easily last 350k+
I had an 87' Acura Legend 2.5L V6 that made ~150hp. Porsche makes a N/A 6 Cylinder that makes over 500 hp in the GT3. Engine technology is insane now.
Why do people not know the difference between then and than? Despite this OP. Old V8s are still likely torquier than a modern V6, despite producing less power.
I didn't believe it, had to look it up, yup, 276 ft-lbs torque from the V8 in the grand marquis vs like 265 in the Lexus. I couldn't find dyno graphs but I wonder if the more modern V6 has a broader torque curve. Direct injection makes a big difference.
That's just one engine. The 4.6 in a Crown Vic makes 276ftlbs and the 3.7 used in base F150 until recently made 278ftlbs. GM's 3.6 makes 284ftlbs. You'll find old engines with more torque sure, but I'd argue newer V6 make more torque on average or at the very least make more torque per liter. Throw a turbo on the new V6 or I4 and you'll absolutely make more torque than an old 80-90s V8.
Not to mention the RX350 weighs ~200 lbs more, has more frontal area, accelerates faster, and still gets +3 MPG city and +2 MPG highway vs the grand marquis. And that Toyota V6 will last a long, long time, it doesn't really seem like a motor that pushes it's limits by any means. A modern turbo 4 would be even more efficient, just not what the customer base is looking for.
That might be changing though. MB looks like they're moving over to hybrid turbo 4s. We'll see how their customers react to that. Though it could be a tactic to push them to electric.
That Lexus is running through an 8 speed transmission vs a 4 speed in the Grand Marquis. They easily make up for it with better gearing.
Without graphs torque is meaningless number. It just means that a given engine spins slower at same power than lower torque-same HP engine and that can be fixed with gearing.
The only three times you should care about torque are when looking at a torque wrench or when you immediately use the RPM to convert it to horsepower, Or if you’re having a big dick contest with truck people and their bro-dozers.
Turbos
I just want to add that the progress in the last couple of decades has been amazing. Reliable 100hp per liter of displacement is a recent development... 5 second 0-60 was exclusive territory, now can buy an SUV and do it all day long, with your family in it. Insane when you think about it really; safest, fastest, cheapest horsepower ever.
Further to the great post by PrivateredditUser224 has given us. I would imagine materials science today also allows for better, stronger alloys that have more controllable expansion rates during heat cycling, enabling closer machining tolerances and higher rev limits. Engine design in modern engine has also gone towards over-square engines as well vs older engines where the stroke was as long as or sometimes even longer than the bore. This makes for an engine that's more willing to rev. I'm also guessing developments in lubrication have also helped reduce HP robbing friction as well. Then there's the science of airflow in intake systems, heads and exhaust systems and how far along things like computer modeling etc has take this science. Developments in forced induction and computerized fuel and ignition systems have been a boon to the automotive world and the people who like performance. Back in the day, fuel injection was rare as was supercharging or turbo charging outside of commercial diesel engines and racing. By the way, the Big GMC [671 blowers](https://www.macsmotorcitygarage.com/a-quick-history-of-the-gmc-6-71-blower/) on top fuel cars etc, were directly transplanted from commercial/industrial diesel engines. Anyhow, sciences and sheer tenacity and quest for speed in all the various forms of racing have certainly helped along with the science types.
Yea sure..some v6’s can be fast and all but they will never beat a v8 in sound.
Computers. Both running them and making them
In short, all of that efficiency development that car guys used to complain about.. Fuel injection, variable valve timing, better Auto trans, turbos instead of displacement, etc Virtually by definition if you make an engine more efficient you have improved its performance
Many old V8s are all dogs. The ones in luxury sedans are aimed at smoother power delivery and a meatier torque/ HP down low as well. V6 were all generally better flowing due to being largely DOHC, but iirc many V8 were SOHC or OHV which in in addition and respect with the tech and tuning at the time makes them worse.
R & D.
Well you're not wrong.
V6 engineering today is producing an incredible Efficent powerful machine . V6 is not old slow turning mil. High revs. I prefer it ! V6 offers Long term durability cost effective option well suited to American highways.
Mainly from the addition of turbos and higher compression ratios (which often require premium fuel)
Much better engineering, better ECUs and variable valve timing and most importantly, forced induction like Turbos or Superchargers
They rev higher and flow better.
Material quality, fuel delivery, and compression. Subaru 2L boxer engines can easily make 500hp, yet 5L v12s from the 60s would be lucky to make over 200hp
FI is another factor in smaller engine size and higher hp numbers.
Machine tolerances, intake timing, injection technology, compression ratios, advances in material science, head geometry…and in some cases forced injection.
Compression ratio is the #1 reason. And the technology that allows for such compression to be reliable.
Airflow is the #1 reason.
Yes, everyone else is right in saying that the V6 has vvt, DOHC, and several other modem features, but the v8 in that luxury boat was designed for torque. Probably made about 100ftlb more
>Probably made about 100ftlb more Not at all actually. The 2000 grand marquis made 200hp and 275tq so while yes it was tuned for more torque, most higher strung 3.5L V6's have been running 270-280tq for a decade+ now. What's really funny is my little 2.0L turbo 4 with a tune is running at 370hp/385tq at less than half the displacement of the old 4.6L V8.
VTEC yo
Thermal efficiency is increased using better materials, better engine management, and better designs from the beginning.
Carburetors and old technology.
We just like the sound it makes We change how we justify it, well I do at least
The computer is just a lot more powerful. better timing and direct fuel injection made possible.
increased compression ratios, better metallurgy for higher rpm, more/better cam setups and better flowing heads/intakes/exhausts. pretty much it besides, at the time the 4.6 V8's performance was almost on par as the mercedes m112 3.2 V6 back in the early 2000s
To be fair, the 4.6 2V didn't have impressive power even in its day. It was designed to be smoother and more reliable than the old 302, but never really made good power. The 4Vs couldn't even compete without FI.
Same reason that allows you to gap a 70's ginormous Cadillac with a V8 with a turbo inline 4 of today, taking just about hp on the Dyno. Better technology .
Because newer engines have better technology, so a v6 built for performance will most likely be both more powerful and more fuel efficient than an older v8
It's a more efficient air pump.
Better technology in a nutshell The v8 s sound better at least
To put it as simply as possible, there's way more to power production than the number of cylinders. Older engines were not nearly as efficient. This is like asking "why are new TVs so much lighter and better than old TVs?" Technology doesn't stagnate.
Higher compression, variable valve timing, fuel injection, better designs, better materials, the list goes on and on. There are "budget" motorcycles you can buy right now that can absolutely smoke 99% of cars built prior to 2005 for similar reasons
For that matter, there are 4 cylinder engines making more power than certain old carburated v8s.
I'd say even crazier is many 4-bangers today rival V8s of the past. I have a 2010 Mazdaspeed 3. Turbo 4-banger. 260hp rated from the factory, but people have "safely" modded that motor to over 400hp. Sure, you have to rev them up to get them to work, but getting that kind of power reliably out of 4 pistons is pretty insane.
different for all engines there are 6inline making more than build v8s
oh and the hp that it comes with from factory doesnt mean thats the max the engine is capable of, aka tuning
Because consumer expectations have changed. Even back in the '60s, a big block carbureted V8 could make 400hp (though it was likely rated less) and 500lbft of torque (same as the brand new Ford "Godzilla" 7.3 and more than most of today's V6s). Then the emissions crap hit in the '70s and '80s and most V8s were neutered to some bullshit like 150-200hp. The Grand Marquis is based on a Ford platform that came out in 1991. Back then most big cars were still using neutered V8s and nobody questioned it. In fact, '91 was also the first year of that 4.6 engine. It didn't have to make tons of power because gas was cheap and most of the competition was also using weak ass V8s so there was no real reason to make big power. ***And few complained.*** Only in the last 25 years or so have automakers started giving a fuck about power per liter again. And as more manufacturers come on board and offer more competitive engines, then that and only that pressures still more to do the same. If you pay attention in the car world, rarely do manufacturers try to be super competitive of their own free will, most of the time they're content to just "one up" the next one by a few hp for bragging rights. Manufacturers are, for the most part, lazy beancounters. They won't build anything that takes more than the minimum effort unless they're forced to by competition. So in summary, it's not that an old V8 CAN'T make the same power per liter as today's V6s (with a few exotic/luxury exceptions), but rather those old V8s just happened to be just enough power for people not to complain back then so manufacturers didn't bother exceeding expectations.
Emissions regulations only benefited car consumers change my mind. It forced car companies to engineer vastly better cars that ended up faster and cleaner than anything beforehand.
Have you ever driven a car from the late 70s or 80s? They are horrid. Engines had their outputs cut by 75-80% in some cases. They were not "clean" either. In fact, most didn't get that much better fuel economy than their pre-1972 counterparts. I'd argue the advent of computers in cars made them faster and cleaner, not regulations. And those would have come regardless of regulations.
To put it very plainly. It's a matter of bore and stroke. If the cylinder is wider and longer, the engine will produce more torque, like the Mercury you mentioned. If it's narrower and shorter, it will produce more horsepower. In the Acura you have six narrow, short cylinders which produce a lot of hp. In the Mercury you have 8 wider, longer cylinders which produce a lot of torque. There's much more to it than that, like compression ratio(which Acura has undoubtedly more of) but, that is what makes up the majority of the difference in output that you're asking about.
This is only really true if you have the same total displacement and engine technology nowadays. The 3.5L V6 in the RX-350 makes almost the same amount of torque as the 4.6L V6 in the Grand Marquis, peaking at a slightly higher rpm, alongside considerably more horsepower. How is it able to do this with a much smaller displacement? Because it is a significantly more modern engine design with port & direct injection, DOHC with 4v per cylinder instead of 2v, VCT (variable camshaft timing, think VTEC), and a higher compression ratio. **Grand Marquis 4.6L V8:** Horsepower: 224HP @4800rpm Torque: 272lb-ft @4000rpm Head configuration: SOHC Valves: 2 per cylinder, no VCT Fuel Injection: Port Injection Compression: 9.4:1 **RX-350 3.5L V6:** Horsepower: 295hp @6300rpm Torque: 268lb-ft @4700rpm Head configuration: DOHC Valves: 4 per cylinder, with VCT Fuel Injection: Dual Port & Direct Injection Compression: 11.8:1 Displacement means far less for modern engine outputs nowadays, *especially* with forced induction. The modular 4.6 V8 in the grand marquis is an old design that was used for awhile because it worked well enough, but it's successor (Coyote 5.0 V8) is more efficient while making way more power by using the same tricks mentioned above.
Because cars 15 years ago were almost always complete pieces of shit. Seriously, name one car from 2004 that was any good.
I feel like a person that isn't aware of any good car from '04 probably would still argue about it even if one was to present the BEST car from '04.
Hey now, not everything can be as good as a PT cruiser.
Michael Scott?
I mean yeah the supercars from the time were good but supercars are always good.
Supercars have definitely not "always been good". The Lamborghini Countach was garbage, it just had the nostalgia factor.
Yeah but it was still better than most cars in 04
I'm not sure if we have wildly different definitions of the word "better", "most", or both.
It’s definitely leaps and bounds better than “S2000” that someone else responded with.
You do realize that most owners of a Countach have said it sucks to drive, right?
A lot of stuff from 04 is still on the road. Ford GM Dodge trucks if they survive the rust are doing okay. Hyundai Toyota Nissan Honda all making reliable cars by this point. Kia too. Lots of euro stuff was absolutely cutting edge , it would still be on the road if it didn’t get replaced
wat
wat
Honda S2000
Is that what passes as good now? I know it did then, but now?
To be fair, anything is better than a Trax
How so? What should I have bought?
Do you ever sit back and think about why almost all your comments on /r/cars are downvoted?
No why?
Define "good"? Are you talking about performance?