quote:

Originally posted by thebenster:

quote:

Originally posted by XNtrikalfaman:
remember the glorious brm 1500cc v16.....classic and sportscar gave away a vinyl of that engine screaming way back when, sent shivers down the spine...

nothing glorious about that engine, it was a categorical failure during races, totally unreliable and a complete waste of money for the backers.
A small capacity v10 is totally pointless and generates excess friction and will have very poor economy. 500cc per piston is about the optimum.

At a guess, i'd say G. means the glorious sound and outrageous cylinder to capacity ratio, rather than the success or otherwise?

500cc is a good size for a cylinder.
4196cc/8 cylinders is this Jaguar!

quote:

Originally posted by thebenster:

quote:

Originally posted by XNtrikalfaman:
remember the glorious brm 1500cc v16.....classic and sportscar gave away a vinyl of that engine screaming way back when, sent shivers down the spine...

nothing glorious about that engine, it was a categorical failure during races, totally unreliable and a complete waste of money for the backers.
A small capacity v10 is totally pointless and generates excess friction and will have very poor economy. 500cc per piston is about the optimum.

well aware it was a dog.....but it sounded like a diamond..the sound of that engine at full chat, i doubt has EVER been matched...like tearing calico...

The smaller V12s get close on sound!

i recomend you try and find a copy of the sound of that engine at high revs....amazing..i really have heard nothin like it..i prefer the sound of a big block v8, or a tuneful straight five, but that sound really gave me goose bumps..i can only imagine what it sounded like with fangio or the like gunning it round reims or somewhere else equally romantic....a failure of an engine for sure, but a glorious failure in the british tradition...

The M3 CSL had a great engine sound, induction and exhaust!
Even the usually Evo/Skyline-preferring Noxide said as much!

i love the whooosh of my fiats engine when its floored... a straightfive has deliciously out of kilter sound..if feels simultaneously unbalanced yet smooth..work that out.....my favourite word to describe it...sonorous.....its just so civilised....

quote:

Originally posted by XNtrikalfaman:
i recomend you try and find a copy of the sound of that engine at high revs....

So would I... Type BRM V16 into U Toob gives you a taste!

Will try and find it.

quote:

Originally posted by thebenster:
A small capacity v10 is totally pointless and generates excess friction and will have very poor economy. 500cc per piston is about the optimum.

I've read Connaught have designed the engine specifically with this in mind, lowering the bearing surface to reduce the extra friction. I urge you to read up on this car before dismissing it; its absolutely ingenious.

Proof of the pudding though is, as always, in the eating ......

quote:

Originally posted by Boig:

quote:

Originally posted by thebenster:
A small capacity v10 is totally pointless and generates excess friction and will have very poor economy. 500cc per piston is about the optimum.

I've read Connaught have designed the engine specifically with this in mind, lowering the bearing surface to reduce the extra friction. I urge you to read up on this car before dismissing it; its absolutely ingenious.

Proof of the pudding though is, as always, in the eating ......

Lowering the bearing surface? You cant get something for nothing. I remain 99% sceptical.
A lot more metal is used in a small tin of beans than a large tin of beans per volume.

As ever, swings and roundabouts!
If small cylinders weren't a good idea, the fastest street cars would be huge 4s or 6s.
But they are all 8s and 12s and even 16s!

I do wonder about an engine just 220cc per cylinder, though!
However amazing it might sound.
I bet it would be very disappointing, without the supercharger!

quote:

Originally posted by thebenster:

quote:

Originally posted by Boig:

quote:

Originally posted by thebenster:
A small capacity v10 is totally pointless and generates excess friction and will have very poor economy. 500cc per piston is about the optimum.

I've read Connaught have designed the engine specifically with this in mind, lowering the bearing surface to reduce the extra friction. I urge you to read up on this car before dismissing it; its absolutely ingenious.

Proof of the pudding though is, as always, in the eating ......

Lowering the bearing surface? You cant get something for nothing. I remain 99% sceptical.
A lot more metal is used in a small tin of beans than a large tin of beans per volume.

i may be oversimplifying this, but even if thats the case, surely a smaller lighter piston using less metal is gonna rev quicker and easier than one with greater metal and needing to push a greater volume....???....

Harley-Davidson v GSXR600.

Chalk and cheese.
Different strengths.

I was told by an engineer that 3 litres should have 6 pots, so take it from there.

bigger pots, more torque, more instant pull...smaller pots, less inertia, more revs, more power high up.....

Aye, but the extremes are questionable, as in 2.2 V10 and 750cc single!

quote:

Originally posted by XNtrikalfaman:
bigger pots, more torque, more instant pull...smaller pots, less inertia, more revs, more power high up.....

More power, too, for the smaller pots!

quote:

Originally posted by XNtrikalfaman:


i may be oversimplifying this, but even if thats the case, surely a smaller lighter piston using less metal is gonna rev quicker and easier than one with greater metal and needing to push a greater volume....???....

It will rev more true, smaller mass. At 6000 rpm its pulling @2000G, i.e a 100g piston "weighs" 200kg.
Hence i dont buy into the "revs are great" philosophy. Revving engines ages and damages them significantly over moderate time and is best avoided.

Best regards, a misery guts.

Everything in life and cars is a compromise.
Of one sort or another.

One of several downsides to big cylinders, which in theory work less hard, is high piston speeds, because of the long stroke necessary to help get the swept volume.

Consider the BMW M3. It has just had a useful hike in capacity, from 3.25 to 4.0.
But had they kept with 6 cylinders, it would never have been the engine it is with 8.
Bigger cylinders, but not as good.

quote:

Originally posted by Bamford:
As ever, swings and roundabouts!
If small cylinders weren't a good idea, the fastest street cars would be huge 4s or 6s.
But they are all 8s and 12s and even 16s!

I do wonder about an engine just 220cc per cylinder, though!
However amazing it might sound.
I bet it would be very disappointing, without the supercharger!

Bamford, the idealish 500cc per cylinder explains your last three comments. It is not just for manufactruing convenience (though that is a big part of it).

Good luck to them though. A tiny V10 must sound awesome!

Yeah i suppose i wish them luck (begrudgingly) but there is so much amazing technology about to appear, this seems like an odd and backward route with no real raison d'etre. They could be doing something useful instead. Making a nice noise aint good enough IMO.

quote:

Originally posted by thebenster:
Yeah i suppose i wish them luck (begrudgingly) but there is so much amazing technology about to appear, this seems like an odd and backward route with no real raison d'etre. They could be doing something useful instead. Making a nice noise aint good enough IMO.

As already said the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. All Connaught people know they can't afford to mess up so for a trained and vastly experienced engineer to design an all new small capacity V10 they must have identified the advantages outweigh the drawbacks.

It is an ambitious project they could have bought a standard 4 or 6 cylinder off the shelf or from an established manufacturer (Mitsubishi, Subaru, BMW?)

Good luck to them. I would like to see someone with the wallet to buy such a car check them out.