Engine how much BHP bullsh!t???

Plug

Ok me and a friend are having a little argument in work and now its turning to a bet:eek:
He told me the engine from a 1998 Toyota Levin is a 1.6 20v engine with no forced induction, ok that parts right but this part? 175BHP:rolleyes:
I just thought it has no were near that, i mean the M3csl engine for example(enginering marvile) pushes out 111hp to the litre and the toyota supposingly 109hp to the litre.
Another thing I thought was the MK5 GTI engine, 2.0litre 20V and a turbo it pushes out 200BHP thats only an extra 25BHP above the supposingly claimed 175hp of the toyota engine.
I searched google about the specs and got nothing only boards.ie stuff and RTE selling cars:o
Could someone just settle this bet and but him back in his shoes FFS.

HungryJoey

http://www.4age.net/tech/4age/index.htm Thats the closest I could find.. I could of sworn I read about the 20V engine on http://carfolio.com before but couldn't find it. Same goes to wiki, not easy. The only 160/170 BHP 20V levin is supercharged, its not normaly aspirated(from what I can see). But then again I'm no expert.

I'm 99% positive you are correct. I can't imagine a 1.6 N/a engine pushing 160/170bhp without any modifications.

Hj

cyborg

HungryJoey wrote:

http://www.4age.net/tech/4age/index.htm Thats the closest I could find.. I could of sworn I read about the 20V engine on http://carfolio.com before but couldn't find it. Same goes to wiki, not easy. The only 160/170 BHP 20V levin is supercharged, its not normaly aspirated(from what I can see). But then again I'm no expert.

I'm 99% positive you are correct. I can't imagine a 1.6 N/a engine pushing 160/170bhp without any modifications.

Hj

it actually is 165bhp standard and there are lots of other N/A 1.6 cars pushing out over this, mitsubishi Mivec,honda Vtec ,nissan neo vvl etc , are all pushing out 100 bhp/ litre or more and have been for over the last decade and a half!

blastman

Have you not met Mr VTEC?

Can't help with Levin argument, though, sorry

Kimbot

Levin is 165BHP out of the factory on Jap fuel. You will loose power on our fuel unless you get a remap.

Anan1

HungryJoey wrote:

I'm 99% positive you are correct. I can't imagine a 1.6 N/a engine pushing 160/170bhp without any modifications.

The 1.6 Civic VTEC has been doing it for years.;)

dub_dan

HungryJoey wrote:

I'm 99% positive you are correct. I can't imagine a 1.6 N/a engine pushing 160/170bhp without any modifications.

Hj

I've seen a civic type r, 1.6 n/a, totally standard pushing 184bhp atf, r/r proven.

Levin's are around 150bhp on our fuel. But there's the new higher octane stuff coming in soon that'll make a few levin owners happy.

Plug

So ye say about 150-160HP mark?
I bet the torque is low compared to similer sized engines that won't push as much HP out as them.

Eg.
Golf GTI:
Power bhp at RPM: 200 / 5100
Torque lb-ft at RPM: 207 / 1800

Honda Civic:
Power bhp at RPM: 225 / 8000
Torque lb-ft at RPM: 159 / 6100

Big difference there!

Anan1

Plug wrote:

So ye say about 150-160HP mark?
I bet the torque is low compared to similer sized engines that won't push as much HP out as them.

Eg.
Golf GTI:
Power bhp at RPM: 200 / 5100
Torque lb-ft at RPM: 207 / 1800

Honda Civic:
Power bhp at RPM: 225 / 8000
Torque lb-ft at RPM: 159 / 6100

Big difference there!

The Golf is turbocharged. High power output in NA engines is usually achieved through high rpm. The same torque x more revs = more power.

Plug

Anan1 wrote:

The Golf is turbocharged. High power output in NA engines is usually achieved through high rpm. The same torque x more revs = more power.

Ohh I see.
So more power in the low revs equals fast acceleration and more power in the high revs equals faster top speed?

Owen

HungryJoey wrote:

I'm 99% positive you are correct. I can't imagine a 1.6 N/a engine pushing 160/170bhp without any modifications.

I've seen MINI engines, with a new exhaust, manifold, air intake, and remap exceeding 150Bhp, and they're normally aspirated. The 2001-2006 MINI engine, while reliable, and powerful (comparitavely speaking) was a little agricultural in that it had a single Camshaft, and fixed valve timing. I've no doubt that a twin cam engine with variable valve timing, and a decent standard engine would be able to break 160 Bhp without any issues.

Anan1

Plug wrote:

Ohh I see.
So more power in the low revs equals fast acceleration and more power in the high revs equals faster top speed?

Not exactly. At full power, your engine is using a certain amount of its power to overcome friction, wind drag etc - the rest goes into acceleration. The faster you go, the more these losses mount up. Top speed is the speed at which all your engine's power is going into overcoming drag etc - there's none left for acceleration.

FOGOFUNK

Or when you start bouncing off the limiter.......

dogz

[QUOTE=HungryJoey

I'm 99% positive you are correct. I can't imagine a 1.6 N/a engine pushing 160/170bhp without any modifications.

Hj[/QUOTE]


nissans neo vvl 1.6 engine produces 175 bhp in the pulsar and 200 bhp in the pulsar vzr-n1, both do this with no additional mods just they way nissan built them

Mr.Diagnostic

Anan1 wrote:

Not exactly. At full power, your engine is using a certain amount of its power to overcome friction, wind drag etc - the rest goes into acceleration. The faster you go, the more these losses mount up. Top speed is the speed at which all your engine's power is going into overcoming drag etc - there's none left for acceleration.

I think gear ratios may have a little influence too.........

Anan1

Mr.Diagnostic wrote:

I think gear ratios may have a little influence too.........

I'm assuming that this hypothetical car is geared for top speed at max power in top, and that the driver of the car knows how to drive.;)

JHMEG

I think the record for bhp/litre for a normally aspirated engine that was used in normal production is held by the S2000 at 237bhp out of a 2.0-litre.

The Pulsar VZR-N1 (I & II) was unfortunately only a very short "special edition" production run (1,000-1,500 in total) of the VZR.

Plug

Sorry mate, 474HP out of a 2 litre N/A? Utter sh!t where ever you heard that.
Maybe your in heaven afterall:p

Ahh no seriously I think you should of said 118BHP. Alot of horsepower but bollox torque i reckon.

Anan1

Plug wrote:

Sorry mate, 474HP out of a 2 litre N/A? Utter sh!t where ever you heard that.
Maybe your in heaven afterall:p

Ahh no seriously I think you should of said 118BHP. Alot of horsepower but bollox torque i reckon.

He said 237bhp out of a 2 litre, ie total rather than per litre. And he's right.:)

bushy...

blastman wrote:

Have you not met Mr VTEC?

VTEC and friends are there to give you more power at low rpm really. Without it you'll end up with a peaky motor .

Anan1

bushy... wrote:

VTEC and friends are there to give you more power at low rpm really. Without it you'll end up with a peaky motor .

It really depends on your perspective. VVT allows an engine to be tuned for both low and high-end power, rather than one or the other.

Rippy

All are beaten by a good bike engine. For example, Honda CBR1100 XX Blackbird = 160 BHP from 1.1 litre .

Anan1

Rippy wrote:

All are beaten by a good bike engine. For example, Honda CBR1100 XX Blackbird = 160 BHP from 1.1 litre .

Yeah, but try pulling a car with that.;)

JHMEG

Rippy wrote:

All are beaten by a good bike engine. For example, Honda CBR1100 XX Blackbird = 160 BHP from 1.1 litre .

That's because bike engines can spin so much higher. More revs = more power as you can burn fuel faster.. ie burn more fuel, get more power. The same applies to VTEC etc: more power by spinning faster. VTEC's only function is to allow the engine to breathe at higher rpms.

nastysimon

Anan1 wrote:

Yeah, but try pulling a car with that.;)

http://www.pistonheads.co.uk/sales/198347.htm
It's a bike engined car and quite quick (think Porsche 911 Turbo or quicker on a track).
As for the Toyota 20V engine, as standard it'll do between 145 and 155 as Toyota were telling slight porkies (even on Japanese fuel). For a 1.6, it's quickish.

Anan1

I meant a car car.:)

Plug

nastysimon wrote:

http://www.pistonheads.co.uk/sales/198347.htm
It's a bike engined car and quite quick (think Porsche 911 Turbo or quicker on a track).
As for the Toyota 20V engine, as standard it'll do between 145 and 155 as Toyota were telling slight porkies (even on Japanese fuel). For a 1.6, it's quickish.

The thing weighs less than half a ton, now put a ton of bricks in that caterham and see will it move.

I have a little theroy to get over all this torque/bhp thing and correct me if im wrong.
The likes of the toyota engine or the honda v-tec engine have plenty of Horsepower becasue they spin much faster due to the fact that they have a smaller stroke on the crankshaft than most cars.

If they had a larger stroke they would put out less bhp but more torque. Think of it as a seesaw, the bigger diameter of the crankshaft the larger the torque but since it is big it means the piston has further to travel on the strokes therefore it has lower revs.

Diesel engines have low revs becasue it takes a longer stroke to compress and heat up the air in order to ignite the fuel/air mixture. They have a lot of torque, alot more than petrol but suffer from less horsepower due to the low revs. Thats why trucks have diesel engines.

JHMEG

Plug wrote:

The likes of the toyota engine or the honda v-tec engine have plenty of Horsepower becasue they spin much faster due to the fact that they have a smaller stroke on the crankshaft than most cars.

This is correct, simply cos shorter stroke = less distance to travle and therefore less time to complete a stroke. Some are "square" (stroke = bore) and some are "over square" (stoke < bore). Most "normal" petrol engines would have a stroke that's greater than the bore.

Plug wrote:

If they had a larger stroke they would put out less bhp but more torque. Think of it as a seesaw, the bigger diameter of the crankshaft the larger the torque but since it is big it means the piston has further to travel on the strokes therefore it has lower revs.

Without increasing displacement (or artificially increasing it by using a turbo) I don't think more torque is possible with a petrol because petrols can never have a stroke a comparatively long as a diesel (the petrol would ignite long before the end of the stroke).

Plug wrote:

Diesel engines have low revs becasue it takes a longer stroke to compress and heat up the air in order to ignite the fuel/air mixture. They have a lot of torque, alot more than petrol but suffer from less horsepower due to the low revs. Thats why trucks have diesel engines.

You are correct, but as said above a petrol could not manage that sort of compression stroke.

nastysimon

Anan1 wrote:

I meant a car car.:)

It is, it's a real sports car, unlike luxobarges like the 911 Turbo

Plug wrote:

The thing weighs less than half a ton, now put a ton of bricks in that caterham and see will it move.

It'll still move, especially if you gear it correctly, but you'll be using lots of revs to do any work. This kind of design is perfectly suited to a sports car and not to a general workhorse (think thoroughbred v. draft horse).

The likes of the toyota engine or the honda v-tec engine have plenty of Horsepower becasue they spin much faster due to the fact that they have a smaller stroke on the crankshaft than most cars.

Yes, they are short stroke engines, which results in high revs (good power) and poor low down torque, which is due to a number of factors, not least of which is piston speed. The VTEC system overcomes some of the problems of big bore engines by allowing for a hot cam suitable for the higher revs and a more gentle cam for lower revs. If it was to use the hot-cam for lower revs it wouldn't idle properly, emissions and economy would be terrible and it would generally be a pig to drive.

Diesel engines have low revs becasue it takes a longer stroke to compress and heat up the air in order to ignite the fuel/air mixture. They have a lot of torque, alot more than petrol but suffer from less horsepower due to the low revs. Thats why trucks have diesel engines.

Not exactly, but not too far from the truth either. Diesel engines rev lower for a number of reasons, not least of which is your one above. Since diesels have to be stronger due to much higher compression ratios, the components are heavier and therefore not suitable for higher revs. There are a few other reasons, though I'm pretty sure that they could all be overcome.

JHMEG wrote:

Without increasing displacement (or artificially increasing it by using a turbo) I don't think more torque is possible with a petrol because petrols can never have a stroke a comparatively long as a diesel (the petrol would ignite long before the end of the stroke).

Not exactly. A petrol engine can have just as long a stroke as a diesel engine, but must have a larger combustion chamber (roughly 1.8 times) to keep the compression ratio down.

Much of the reason for diesels having more torque is due to the fact that they are generally turbocharged. Turbos are great for torque, but aren't so great for throttle response (something diesels are bad at anyway).

AntiVirus

The Toyota Celica's VVTL-i engine pushes out 106.7 bhp/litre

Owen

nastysimon wrote:

Turbos are great for torque, but aren't so great for throttle response (something diesels are bad at anyway).

Actually, a lot of modern Turbos are twin scroll Turbos, which have virtually no lag.

Anan1

ned78 wrote:

Actually, a lot of modern Turbos are twin scroll Turbos, which have virtually no lag.

I think any turbo will have lag, it's just in the nature of the system. Some are much better than others, but none will have the immediacy of a big NA.

davidclayton

here's the records for bhp per litre on production cars according to WIKI:

* Naturally-aspirated pistonless rotary engine - 140.5 kW (191.1 PS/188.8 hp) /litre - Mazda RX-8 Renesis (184 kW (250 PS/247 hp) JIS 1.3 L)

* Petrol/Gasoline (naturally-aspirated) piston engine - 92.1 kW (125.2 PS/123.7 hp)/litre - 2000 JDM Honda S2000 F20C (184 kW (250 PS/247 hp) JIS 2.0 L I4)

nastysimon

Anan1 wrote:

I think any turbo will have lag, it's just in the nature of the system. Some are much better than others, but none will have the immediacy of a big NA.

Yes, and I wasn't just talking about turbo lag.
Turbo engines have less imediate throttle response than a NA engine. When you jab the throttle, the time between the jab and the engine responding is greater on a Turbo engine than a properly sorted NA one. Similarly, a turbo engine usually takes longer to get to the revs you want when you blip the throttle (for down shifts, etc.).

Of course, some turbo engines are great, it's just that there is no substitute for CCs.

As for NA car engines with the highest specific output there are two better than the S2000 (from Wikipedia):
125hp/Litre - Caterham Seven Superlight R500 VHPD Rover K-Series engine (253.5PS/250bhp 2.0L I4)
168 hp/litre - 2002 Radical Sportscars SR3 (252 hp (184 kW) 1.5 L I4 engine)

Rovi

nastysimon wrote:

Of course, some turbo engines are great, it's just that there is no substitute for CCs.

Of course, plenty of CCs + turbos = a good thing

JHMEG

nastysimon wrote:

Not exactly. A petrol engine can have just as long a stroke as a diesel engine, but must have a larger combustion chamber (roughly 1.8 times) to keep the compression ratio down.

ie increasing displacement!

JHMEG

Rovi wrote:

Of course, plenty of CCs + turbos = a good thing

But only if you own your own oil well. And a refinery to go with it. And you don't mind killing the planet...

nastysimon

JHMEG wrote:

ie increasing displacement!

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Displacement=PI x (bore/2)^2 x stroke x number of cylinders. So for a Rover 1.4 K series, that is 3.1416*(7.5*2)^2*7.9 which equals 1396, the displacement of that engine (measurements in cm and cc). The size and shape of the combustion chamber has nothing to do with displacement (but hugely effects compression ratio and performance). It could be the size of my ego and it wouldn't increase the displacement.
Only increasing the stroke, bore or number of cylinders on a diesel or petrol engine will result in a larger displacement. Therefore, a petrol engine with the same bore, stroke and number of cylinders as a diesel engine, but with a 1.8 times larger combustion chamber, has the same displacement, but about .556 times the compression ratio (and usually about 60% more power, all other things being equal).

But only if you own your own oil well. And a refinery to go with it. And you don't mind killing the planet...

Ok, increasing the engine size and adding a turbo is unlikely to reduce the carbon footprint of an engine, but it might not make it as bad as you think. You'll probably find that trying to get the same level of power out of a much smaller engine would result in even greater footprint.
If you drive, you are killing the planet, so obviously you don't mind doing so anyway. As someone who drives mostly for pleasure (public transport will suffice for most other purposes), I believe that driving a car which maximises that pleasure for a shorter distance is much better than driving a lesser car for a significantly greater distance to get the same enjoyment. Since I have never found a diesel which is anywhere near as much fun as a nice small lightweight petrol engined sports car, I think I'll stick to one of them. And my 3L V6 engine sounds oh so very sweet when it's sucking down those dead dinosaurs

gerbo

So you lost the bet.....

Owen

Anan1 wrote:

I think any turbo will have lag, it's just in the nature of the system. Some are much better than others, but none will have the immediacy of a big NA.

Me b*llicks. The Cooper S I had in Jan-June had zero lag. Foot down, it went. No build up, none of that nonsense. That's what a twin scroll turbo does for you. Also, the 535d has 2 turbos, a little one feeding the big one, and that also has practically zero lag. Turbos have come on significantly in the last 3 years.

jonny24ie

jonny24ie wrote:

Levin is 165BHP out of the factory on Jap fuel. You will loose power on our fuel unless you get a remap.

No.. you will lose power anyway. The remap is done to prevent damage to the engine. Although I'm fairly sure a remap is pointless on these cars anyway as the engine management system should retard the timing.

Idleater

ned78 wrote:

Me b*llicks. The Cooper S I had in Jan-June had zero lag. Foot down, it went. No build up, none of that nonsense.

isn't the mini cooper S a supercharged engine rather than a turbo?

JHMEG

nastysimon wrote:

with a 1.8 times larger combustion chamber, has the same displacement,

I don't understand how you can increase the size of the combustion chamber without increasing bore or stroke, or both, and thereby increasing displacement? Are you talking about increasing the size of the combustion chamber when the piston is at the top (fully compressed) by not going as close to the top, and therefore really talking about reducing compression? My understanding is combustion chamber size = volume when piston is at the bottom. Multiply by number of cylinders and you get cc.

nastysimon wrote:

Ok, increasing the engine size and adding a turbo is unlikely to reduce the carbon footprint of an engine, but it might not make it as bad as you think. You'll probably find that trying to get the same level of power out of a much smaller engine would result in even greater footprint.

You're right in that the rate at which fuel burns is directly proportional to the CO2 output. A 1.6 normally aspirated engine spinning at 8,000rpm would probably put out the same CO2 as a 2.0 spinning slower.

nastysimon wrote:

If you drive, you are killing the planet, so obviously you don't mind doing so anyway.

My comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek. What I really mean is the more fuel you burn the more you're helping things on their way. The train I get to work every day has 8 dirty diesel engines, so I'm doing my bit even by using public transport!

nastysimon

JHMEG wrote:

I don't understand how you can increase the size of the combustion chamber without increasing bore or stroke, or both, and thereby increasing displacement? Are you talking about increasing the size of the combustion chamber when the piston is at the top (fully compressed) by not going as close to the top, and therefore really talking about reducing compression? My understanding is combustion chamber size = volume when piston is at the bottom. Multiply by number of cylinders and you get cc.

AFAIK, the combustion chamber is that volume which is left when the piston is at top dead centre. And I was talking about reducing the compression (for a petrol over a diesel).
Engine displacement is accepted as the swept volume of the engine for one full revolution, so that all that matters when calculating displacement is the volume through which the pistons sweep. This might seem to favour engines with large combustion chambers, but in fact it doesn't really as despite having a larger volume charge, it has still sucked in the same amount but compressed it less. In fact, if anything it favours those with the smaller combustion chamber as they are (IIRC) potentially more efficient (for a given fuel).
Superchargers (which turbos are) screw with this as they effectively increase the size of the charge, giving you an effect somewhat equivalent to a larger displacement. But to do so, they reduce the efficiency of the exhaust and inlet systems and as the charge is generally considerably hotter, they reduce its effectiveness too. Additionally, they reduce the responsiveness of the engine, add weight, complexity, cost, reduce reliability, and make the engine less predictable (for a given revs with a NA car, opening the throttle the same amount on two different occasions will have the same results, with a turbo, you have to factor in the amount of pressure being created at that time). All that said and to the best of my knowledge, in some cases, a turbo can give greater efficiency than a non-turbo, particularly a low pressure turbo which is used to reduce the work that the engine has to do to compress the charge, something which really helps in diesels.

Idleater

nastysimon wrote:

Superchargers (which turbos are) screw with this as they effectively increase the size of the charge, giving you an effect somewhat equivalent to a larger displacement.

yes, but superchargers are cam driven (take a feed direct from the engine itself) whereas turbos are gas driven (take a feed from the exhaust gasses).

Superchargers therefore do not have lag because they are directly connected to the engine where as turbos require _some_ pressure in order to make the compressor spin.

Hence my comment about your comment about the cooper S having *no* lag, compared to the 525 with "virtually no lag".

Owen

nereid wrote:

isn't the mini cooper S a supercharged engine rather than a turbo?

2002-2006 it was Supercharged, the Cabrio still is, but the new 2007 R56 hatchback is Turbocharged.

Owen

nereid wrote:

Superchargers therefore do not have lag because they are directly connected to the engine where as turbos require _some_ pressure in order to make the compressor spin. Hence my comment about your comment about the cooper S having *no* lag, compared to the 525 with "virtually no lag".

Actually, it was my comment about the S, and a 535. And your assumption is correct, with older designed turbos, there was a spool up time, and that spool up time was dependent on exhaust pressure, but in the case of both the S, and the 535d, they're using very new types of turbo which exhibit no lag to the observer (To a dyno machine, perhaps there is a fraction of a second lag, but this is unperceiveable by a person). As explained, the turbo on the S is twin scroll, and the 535d has 2 turbos, a little one which is on constantly, and in turn, feeds the big one. Both very new technologies, and not based on the principles you have above.

nastysimon

nereid wrote:

yes, but superchargers are cam driven (take a feed direct from the engine itself) whereas turbos are gas driven (take a feed from the exhaust gasses).

Superchargers therefore do not have lag because they are directly connected to the engine where as turbos require _some_ pressure in order to make the compressor spin.

Hence my comment about your comment about the cooper S having *no* lag, compared to the 525 with "virtually no lag".

Sorry, you did not understand. The full and proper name for a turbo is a turbo-supercharger. Turbo-superchargers do have slightly different drawbacks to ordinary superchargers, but are more efficient and can operate through a wider range. Ordinary superchargers have no lag, and turbo-superchargers have lag. Lag is not the same thing as throttle responsiveness and does not affect it at all.

BTW, I never commented on either the MINI or BMW.

Anan1

nastysimon wrote:

Lag is not the same thing as throttle responsiveness and does not affect it at all.

??

nastysimon

Anan1 wrote:

??

Lag, as in turbo-lag is the time it takes the turbo to spool up. During this the throttle is still as responsive as ever. Throttle response is how quickly the engine responds to opening the throttle but does not include lag (which is nearly always an order of magnitude worse). Many cars have no turbo and really bad throttle response, even worse than many turbo cars. If the turbo engine responds quickly to the throttle opening (even if it is still spooling up), it has good throttle response even though it will soon give a slightly different response to the throttle.
A simple test is to blip the throttle while the engine is idling (jab it and release very quickly) and see what difference in time there is between you hitting th throttle and the engine responding. Now do the same starting with the engine at a constant revs (say at every 1000 rpm) and see if there is any difference. Of course, this leaves out one very significant factor, engine load, which requires you to be driving. Good throttle response will have a tiny delay between you hitting the throttle and the engine responding to it and will do so all the way through the revs and at every load.

Anan1

nastysimon wrote:

Lag, as in turbo-lag is the time it takes the turbo to spool up. During this the throttle is still as responsive as ever. Throttle response is how quickly the engine responds to opening the throttle but does not include lag (which is nearly always an order of magnitude worse)

I don't think so. An off-boost turbocharged engine is basically a low-compression NA until the turbo spools up. Any immediate throttle response will therefore be weak. No turbo = no shove.