Comments on Stu's Serena thread set me thinking about this. Manufacturers often develop the same basic engine far beyond its original design. In the process they may increase its output or efficiency, but how far can it go before a good engine is overdeveloped into a duff one?
Example 1: I think the VW PD engine reached its peak with the 130 version. I tried one in a Bora in 2002 and thought it was one of the nicest and most drivable engines I'd experienced. I later tried it in a Passat estate and an A4 and was equally impressed.
But the 1.9 150 and, especially, the 2.0 140 seem to have turned the PD into a grumbly old thing that is enough to put me off the car containing it.
Example 2: Recent test reports of Volvos with current versions of the 2.4-litre, five-cylinder diesel engine have described it as 'noisy' or even 'agricultural'. I have no firsthand knowledge here, but those certainly aren't adjectives I'd apply to my 2002 S60 D5; indeed, the engine was one of the three key features that sold me the car all that time ago.
So what other examples are there? And when does sensible engineering development become making-do when an all-new replacement would be more appropriate?
|
Some exampls I know of from the top of the head.
The A series engine - Developed in 1952 and used until 2000 when the original Mini went out of production. It had quite a few modifications the famous ones in 1959 (gearbox in the sump and transverse) and again 1980 for the Metro and again some time in the late 90's (MPI). They tried to replace it in the 70's with an engine called the K series (not THEE K series) but they realised the A series was better. It wasn't until 1989 that it was replaced with a new K series.
The Ford Kent - Produced from 1959 to 2003. Again had all the modifications the A series had but was pretty hopepless by 2003. Still its a brilliant engine for bangers because there is no long chain or cambelt to worry about.
Fiat FIRE engine - Produced from about 1983 till the current day. It is currently being replaced by the Multiair engines but a new Euro 5 FIRE has just been introduced for the basic Pandas producing 74bhp in 1.2 form. Not bad for 8V OHC 27 year old design. They are showing their age now though. One of the reasons I got the Panda was for this engine though everything is easy to go, even the cambelt change is an hour book.
Then there is engines like the Ford CVH which barely lasted twenty years before it was scrapepd due to its flaws, although early Zetecs are pretty much just heavily modified CVHs with 16 valves.
The XUD engine is probably another example but was only in serve for around 20 years before it became too noisy and heavy.
Last edited by: RattleandSmoke on Wed 1 Dec 10 at 18:02
|
The Buick v8 lump that they kept boring out and boring out to larger capacities that ended up in everything from Rovers (3.5 litre?) to TVRs (5.4 litres) before getting a name for shedding piston liners in Range Rover 4.6's. It's gotta be a contender :-)
BMW, a lot of the current engines can trace large parts of their design through their predecessors and way back into the 80's and before, but i'm not sure any of them were over developed. They seemed to take them so far (the TU / Technical Update versions) then the next round of improvements end up with a new engine model code.
EDIT: lots of edits, sorry :-)
Last edited by: Skoda on Wed 1 Dec 10 at 18:12
|
>> BMW, a lot of the current engines can trace large parts of their design through
>> their predecessors and way back into the 80's and before, but i'm not sure any
>> of them were over developed. They seemed to take them so far (the TU /
>> Technical Update versions) then the next round of improvements end up with a new engine
>> model code.
In the case of the M52 engine, the ones with cast iron blocks were superior to the later alloy blocks with nicasil lining. If the later engines overheat they are basically scrap - the iron block engines were the best of their type for durability, even if they were heavier.
Last edited by: corax on Wed 1 Dec 10 at 19:11
|
Is that the one that was cranked up to 1500 bhp? Now that's development!
John
|
>> cast iron blocks were superior to the later alloy blocks with nicasil lining.
Bah, who wants a ton of engine under the bonnet to understeer you off the track :-) They did the alusil ones after the nicasils, best of both worlds
>> Is that the one that was cranked up to 1500 bhp? Now that's development!
That was based on an older engine i think, google says the M10 or M12 engine?
The blocks they used to build those came only from scrapped 100k+ milers - they wanted proven strong blocks, and figured at 100k miles they'd just about be run in and proven strong :-)
|
Lamborghini seem to have done well with their V12, without overdoing or wrecking it. Also a successful powerboat engine
engine configuration — 3.5 & 4.0 litre
60° V12 engine; wet sump lubrication system
engine configuration — 6.2 & 6.5 litre
60° V12 engine; dry sump lubrication system
ISTR that there is a 7+ litre engine now?
Last edited by: Perky Penguin (p) on Wed 1 Dec 10 at 18:28
|
>> Example 2: Recent test reports of Volvos with current versions of the 2.4-litre, five-cylinder diesel
>> engine have described it as 'noisy' or even 'agricultural'. I have no firsthand knowledge here,
>> but those certainly aren't adjectives I'd apply to my 2002 S60 D5; indeed, the engine
>> was one of the three key features that sold me the car all that time
>> ago.
>>
The only thing your (and my D5) have in common with new D5 is the name. The new one was completely redesigned.
|
|
The Coventry Climax engine? Not sure if any other engine has quite gone from one end of the engine "use" spectrum right to the opposite extreme!
|
|
Mmm, I'd forgotten about the BMW "block to turbo" engine!
|
>> The Coventry Climax engine? Not sure if any other engine has quite gone from one
>> end of the engine "use" spectrum right to the opposite extreme!
Fork lift truck to formula 1 you mean.
yes quite an achievement.
|
|
Fire engine water pump I think, not a forklift.
|
The Audi 5 cylinder petrol engine started as a 10 valve, then it was turbocharged and developed into a 20 valve, at which point in the rally cars they were producing more than 700 bhp. Then they ditched it for V6's that could fit into short bonnet areas on the road cars (although the straight five was never designed to go into the coupe, which was why it was such a pig to work on, canted over on it's side, especially in the ur-quattro).
Now they've gone full circle with another straight five in the TT, although this is I think a completely different design. But you can't beat the sound of them.
|
|
Agree with you corax. 5 pot 20v turbo petrol or diesel has a lovely note.
|
Was going to nominate the PSA XUD. But in spite of it's numerous applications it was actually right from the start.
The 2.1 version never really gelled but the 1.7-1.9 variants, with or without turbo, were damn good right up to being superseded by the HDI.
|
The BMW F1 turbo engines producing 1500bhp had old blocks. In fact that was the whole point. They used to search for 'seasoned' 4-pot engine blocks.
Did I read that they used to go out an pee on them outside too. Inside, the engine had little to nothing to do with the original use of the block mind.
|
|
The VW PD diesel engines were actually a development of the petrol engine that first appeared in the VW Polo in the early 70s. The CR diesel engines (I think) use a more recent basis. The present VW FSI petrol engines are a development of the engine that first appeared in the original VW Passat around the same time.
|
>>
>> The 2.1 version never really gelled but the 1.7-1.9 variants, with or without turbo, were
>> damn good right up to being superseded by the HDI.
>>
I have to agree, I loved the 71BHP 1.9 XUD in my ZX, it was refined, economical and actually surprisingly nippy. I also agree with the PD comments, I liked both the 115PS and 130PS 1.9 derivatives but the 170PS version in my A4 was most certainly the most horrible engine I've ever encountered - and I include A-Series Maestros in this comparison.
Years ago SWMBO had the 1.0 FIRE engine in an Uno, the engine outlasted the body-work and was unburstable and easy to work on. I kinda liked the K-Series VVC engine in SWMBO's MGF, torquey, good power delivery, fast warm up and economical. We didn't keep it long enough to suffer head gasket problems and I suspect that this 1.8VVC was probably the limit of this engine's development so it doesn't qualify for being a long-developed engine.
|
>> Was going to nominate the PSA XUD. But in spite of it's numerous applications it
>> was actually right from the start.
>>
Indeed it was so good from the start, it was hardly 'developed' at all before being replaced by the HDI. But isn't the block on the 2 engines similar?
|
Makes me think about the Ruston engine British Rail uses
In the Class 08 shunter 6 cylinder in line developing 350HP - 10" bore x 12 " stroke so very lazy.
In the class 58 Locomotive 12 cylinder V developing 3500hp - Turbocharged and intercooled. Twice the capacity, ten times the power.
|
Crikey! Wouldn't 12 cylinders that size mean a displacement of 185 litres? But then those engines pull immensely long trains past my office window, so I can imagine that takes some cubic capacity.
These days there seems to be less boring-out and more charging-up, using new turbos and ECU maps to achieve extra power. Assuming nothing is ever truly for nothing, what determines how much is too much?
|
I would have thought this would happen less and less as new types of engines come out, they are more highly tuned from the word go.
The Honda V-Tec engine from the Civic (type R) is an example where it is already highly tuned and could not be modified much further.
I hear that that type of engine can longer be made due to its emissions levels.
Since we are made to think that hugging trees is the in thing, in the future we will all be driving naff boring cars with the same engine from one or two car makers.
Its starting to happen already.
|
>> in the future we will all be driving naff boring cars
Well, you wont be allowed to sell anything without idiot proof safety features so i doubt we'll see anything exciting to drive at low speed.
Speed will maybe be the substitute. Maybe alternative fuels will open a can of worms, not fussed about hybrid or all electric, but i guess at some point hydrogen will be economically viable to reclaim that might make for some fun in the power side of things.
|
What about the Rolls Royce V8 engine - dates back to the early 50s - originally 6.2 litres but the 6.75 has been around for decades.
Still available in a massively modified/boosted version.
|
|
The Rolls Royce engines on the A380 Airbus could do with some development, preferably before I fly to Australia next year.
|
|
The Trent 900s on the A380 have manufacturing issues. The design seems okay. Some pipe carrying oil got damaged during the manufacturing process apparently.
|
>> The Trent 900s on the A380 have manufacturing issues. The design seems okay. Some pipe
>> carrying oil got damaged during the manufacturing process apparently.
>>
I have seen photos of the pipe, hopefully RR have identified the fault accurately.
|
Actually the trent 900 is probably a case of an engine being developed to far.
or should we say pushed beyond scope.
|
|
As demonstrated by the problems on the Trent 1000 which pushed it even further?
|
|
You mean the V8 now used in the Bentley's? The engine in the Rolls Royce is now a BMW engine. And at one point the RR (which was from the company now labelled Bentley) had a BMW engine. And then the split happened and Bentley went back to the V8.
|
Big displacement - there was a 16 cylinder 4 turbo intercooled version @2000hp which weighed about 25 tonnes.
Torque not an issue, all diesel-electric transmission, even the 350hp will start long trains, just won't go very fast.
|
>> Torque not an issue, all diesel-electric transmission, even the 350hp will start long trains, just
>> won't go very fast.
So what would be the difference between a train like a class 47 with say 2750bhp and a deltic with 3300 bhp. If they are both diesel electric, does this mean the deltic would be able to drive more powerful electric motors?
There a good animation of the deltic configuration here
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napier_Deltic
|
|
Class 47 has just one, low revving, diesel engine of 2750hp, the Deltics had two 1650hp engines, both high revving (relevantly!) ex marine engines... The generators used in diesel electric locos tend to be pretty similar, giving out roughly the same voltage and making it easier on maintenance staff... I think the normal output of the generator (attached to the end of the engine, btw) is about 750v DC (I think - can't confirm, though!)...
|
How far can one engine be developed? - RattleandSmoke
