Engine bay size

General Chat Suggestions
21

[quote=“Drake”]
A good comparison for fuel economy between 2 similarily powered and weight cars would be the Lancia Thema 8.32 with its 2L 32v DOHC V8 to a Saab 9000 with the 2L I4 turbo… Both based on the same Chassis, but the V8 Thema gets a fair bit worse fuel economy. (17.5L City VS 12.3, 9.2 highway VS 9.0)… Even the later 9000 Aero with 10 more hp and 300cc’s of extra displacement over the Lancia got better fuel economy.

There aren’t very many other small V8 engined cars out there, so more comparisons are hard to make…[/quote]

The Lancia Theta 8.32 has a 2.9L V8, not a 2L one! :blush: I looked on Wikipedia and elsewhere and there was only the 2.9L V8 listed :frowning:

Comparing an apple with a different breed of apple is also a bad idea (Apples to Oranges would be 2L petrol with a 2L Diesel IMO :slight_smile: )… A 2L NA is not equal to a 2L Turbo! So the original premise of the comparison is flawed :geek:

I agree that a 2L 4 will use less fuel at the same tune as a 2L 6 or 8 but I suspect the real issue is cheapness and engine bay size that makes the major differences in car manufacturer choices… :slight_smile:

22

[quote=“VicVictory”]Kind of not my point …]

But the point I was trying to get at is this: you can shove a 2.0L I4 in a small engine bay, or a 4.0L V8. If, from both a power and efficiency standpoint, the V8 is that vastly superior to an inline configuration, why don’t we see 3-4L V8’s powering small cars? Or even a 2.5L V8

Answer: you don’t, because that’s not how it really works. And notice how that’s borne out with the 2L engine comparisons above. The only V8 listed is an exotic.[/quote]

Erm… The points I made are pretty much the same that you are making… If a 2L V8 can’t possibly compete with a 2L I4, then a 4L V8 which will easily fit in the place of said 2L Inline 4 hasn’t a chance in hell…

[quote=“VicVictory”]which then comes full circle to the original point of this thread, which is:

In order to simulate the sizes of (transverse) 4-cylinder motors that you see in production over the past few decades, the engine bays need to be larger.[/quote]

I sort of agree. I think the engine bay sizes need tweaking, and I made some points above to this affect, however I think it will require a lot more than a larger engine bay… A larger bay will allow a larger V8 as well so really doesn’t solve anything… The stats of the engines themselves need tweaking first before any real improvement can be seen… if the engine calculations are fundamentally wrong then no amount of other changes will compensate.

From there I think the individual bodies could use some tweaking to for example make Inline 6’s a viable alternative to V8s by increasing the length of the bays for cars of the 50s/60s/70s…

I thought about decreasing the width of some of the smaller bodies to give Inline engines a fighting chance, but looking at the specs of alot of these cars they already seem pretty narrow compared to a few period cars, and they have a hard enough time with Transverse engines already(If the transmissions scaled it would help this)… This makes me wonder if the V8s themselves are too narrow perhaps.

I mean I have no trouble fitting a 7.5L V8(116 bore x 88.9mm stroke) in a body the size of a Datsun 510(actually its narrower than the Datsun by about 200mm) … At the same time, if I were to fit a copy of a Nissan L28 Inline 6 in the same car it wouldn’t even come close to fitting… Yet this is a mod that can be done in real life, unlike the 7.5L V8… Shit, if I bring up the stroke too I can get a whole 10L V8 in there with green width arrows… This just isn’t right.

So In summary:

  1. Fix engine calculations
  2. Make V8’s wider
  3. Make transmissions scale with engine size
  4. tweak engine bay sizes
    5)???
  5. Profit!!! :laughing:
23

[quote=“Drake”]
So In summary:

  1. Fix engine calculations
  2. Make V8’s wider
  3. Make transmissions scale with engine size
  4. tweak engine bay sizes
    5)???
  5. Profit!!! :laughing:[/quote]

Yes. :smiley:

Oh, and I vote for “do a little dance” for number 5.

24

[quote=“VicVictory”]

Oh, and I vote for “do a little dance” for number 5.[/quote]

And “make a little love”…

25

you know, pretty much “get down tonight.”

26

[quote=“autofrank”]

I imagine the gearboxes will also be reworked so their size reflects the type of gearbox and # of gears therein, and the size of the engine and flywheel? It sucks not being able to fit larger engines into tiny cars because the gearbox takes up 50% of the room and the engine is on one side. I’m not saying the engine needs to be huge, but some cars should be able to fit more than 1000cc transverse when there is room under the bonnet. Half that room is taken up by a 4speed manual gearbox that looks like it could be 10 speeds! :p[/quote]

That explains why I can’t fit even my 1.3 L four cylinder in any cars in a transverse configuration.

27

[quote=“DeltaForce”]
That explains why I can’t fit even my 1.3 L four cylinder in any cars in a transverse configuration.[/quote]

1.3L? Dear lord, how big is your bore? You’re probably massively oversquare, that’s your problem. Drop your bore a ton, raise your stroke to compensate.

I’ve managed to get as large as a 1.9L 4 in a small car, transverse.

28

[quote=“DeltaForce”]

I imagine the gearboxes will also be reworked so their size reflects the type of gearbox and # of gears therein, and the size of the engine and flywheel? It sucks not being able to fit larger engines into tiny cars because the gearbox takes up 50% of the room and the engine is on one side. I’m not saying the engine needs to be huge, but some cars should be able to fit more than 1000cc transverse when there is room under the bonnet. Half that room is taken up by a 4speed manual gearbox that looks like it could be 10 speeds! :stuck_out_tongue:
That explains why I can’t fit even my 1.3 L four cylinder in any cars in a transverse configuration.[/quote]

I have only gotten a 1.2l NA I4 in a transverse. I don’t even think my 800cc Turbo I4 fits in one.

29

[quote=“VicVictory”]

[quote=“DeltaForce”]
That explains why I can’t fit even my 1.3 L four cylinder in any cars in a transverse configuration.[/quote]

1.3L? Dear lord, how big is your bore? You’re probably massively oversquare, that’s your problem. Drop your bore a ton, raise your stroke to compensate.

I’ve managed to get as large as a 1.9L 4 in a small car, transverse.[/quote]

It’s actually a 1.3 L four cylinder square engine with 75 mm bore and stroke. I haven’t had much success with getting long stroke designs to fit either. The width of the engine bays only allow the smallest of engines to fit transverse.

30

Hmm. The small car I submitted for Cheeseman’s car reviewing thread has a 1.5L square bore engine, transverse. And it fits. With lots of room to spare. In the Honda Fit knockoff body.

Are you using double wishbone front suspension? That also reduces transverse engine size capability. McPherson strut is more compact, and what most RL compacts and subcompacts use.

31

[quote=“VicVictory”]Hmm. The small car I submitted for Cheeseman’s car reviewing thread has a 1.5L square bore engine, transverse. And it fits. With lots of room to spare. In the Honda Fit knockoff body.

Are you using double wishbone front suspension? That also reduces transverse engine size capability. McPherson strut is more compact, and what most RL compacts and subcompacts use.[/quote]

Early model Civics were unique in that they had double wishbone suspension front and rear. I think only after 2000 they switched to MacPherson strut for more legroom up front. So it would be good if a civic could be recreated.