V8's?

[big_joe]

Carryfast:

Big Joe:

Happydaze:

kr79:
A v6 v8 etc will always need revs to get the best from it whereas an in line will have better torque at low revs that’s on petrol diesel car or truck engines.

Why do you say that?

Something to do with the angle of the V, the greater the angle the less torgue it can produce, I sure Curryfart will be along soon to explain

A V engine is just two inline engines that share the same crank shaft and crankcase .

Torque outputs are mainly determined by bore/stroke ratios and how much air you can force into the engine from as low rpm as possible and that is usually determined by single cylinder development versions of the eventual production engine.All outputs usually then just follow the characteristics of that single cylinder experimental motor pro rata by the number of those cylinders and it makes no difference wether those cylinders are in a V configuration or an inline configuration.Which is why the specific torque outputs of a 32 Litre V12 version of the Volvo engine would be as near as makes no difference the same as that of the straight six version and it’s also why the V 6 configuration Detroit motors put out exactly the same outputs as the Inline 6 versions of the same engine and V8’s have never been known for being gutless where torque is concerned which is why they used them in Rolls Royces and Bentleys for years let alone numerous American muscle cars and european cars like Mercs,BMW’s and now Jags.

The main advantage of Inline engines have over V engines has always been in having better big end bearing area whereas V engines have to have narrower big ends because two cylinders have to share one crankshaft journal.But that gets offset by the lower forces which are imposed at that point in a V 8 or V 12 set up compared to an engine with fewer cylinders.While inline 8 and 12 cylinder engines aren’t practical because of their length and the effects of torsion on long crankshafts.

You’ve missed the one big reason why V engines are favoured over inlines in cars, they are far shorter than their inline brethren , an inline 8 would need one hell of an engine bay with bonnet to match, a V8 is no longer than an inline 5 . A V6 also fits nicely into a tranverse position of a front wheel drive car, whereas a straight six would be a tight fit, although Austin managed it with that doyen of British design, the Princess , albeit with some funny shaped cylinder bores to save space and keep the engine shorter.
Merc designed their V truck engines to be modular and keep manufacturing costs down. V6, V8, V12 etc, they all used the same stroke, bore, pistons, con rods, individual cylinder heads et all.

[ellies_dad]

@big Joe,will you go for one of the new Detroit diesels in a few years time,heard they are a good engine.

[carryfast]

Big Joe:

Carryfast:

Big Joe:

Happydaze:

kr79:
A v6 v8 etc will always need revs to get the best from it whereas an in line will have better torque at low revs that’s on petrol diesel car or truck engines.

Why do you say that?

Something to do with the angle of the V, the greater the angle the less torgue it can produce, I sure Curryfart will be along soon to explain

A V engine is just two inline engines that share the same crank shaft and crankcase .

Torque outputs are mainly determined by bore/stroke ratios and how much air you can force into the engine from as low rpm as possible and that is usually determined by single cylinder development versions of the eventual production engine.All outputs usually then just follow the characteristics of that single cylinder experimental motor pro rata by the number of those cylinders and it makes no difference wether those cylinders are in a V configuration or an inline configuration.Which is why the specific torque outputs of a 32 Litre V12 version of the Volvo engine would be as near as makes no difference the same as that of the straight six version and it’s also why the V 6 configuration Detroit motors put out exactly the same outputs as the Inline 6 versions of the same engine and V8’s have never been known for being gutless where torque is concerned which is why they used them in Rolls Royces and Bentleys for years let alone numerous American muscle cars and european cars like Mercs,BMW’s and now Jags.

The main advantage of Inline engines have over V engines has always been in having better big end bearing area whereas V engines have to have narrower big ends because two cylinders have to share one crankshaft journal.But that gets offset by the lower forces which are imposed at that point in a V 8 or V 12 set up compared to an engine with fewer cylinders.While inline 8 and 12 cylinder engines aren’t practical because of their length and the effects of torsion on long crankshafts.

You’ve missed the one big reason why V engines are favoured over inlines in cars, they are far shorter than their inline brethren , an inline 8 would need one hell of an engine bay with bonnet to match, a V8 is no longer than an inline 5 . A V6 also fits nicely into a tranverse position of a front wheel drive car, whereas a straight six would be a tight fit, although Austin managed it with that doyen of British design, the Princess , albeit with some funny shaped cylinder bores to save space and keep the engine shorter.
Merc designed their V truck engines to be modular and keep manufacturing costs down. V6, V8, V12 etc, they all used the same stroke, bore, pistons, con rods, individual cylinder heads et all.

No I didn’t.You’ve missed the bit where I said that 'inline 8 or 12 cylinder engines aren’t practical because of ‘‘their length’’ ‘‘and’’ the effects of torsion on long crankshafts .

There have been some exceptions which have proved the rule though (Gardner 8 LXB,Buick straight 8,Merc SLR,Packard and Cadillac V 16 etc).

As for Leyland BMW and Jaguar have shown enough times an inline 6 is better than a V6,if there’s enough room allowed for the extra length at the design stage,because of it’s better inherent balance .Leyland’s big mistake,like Ford’s in stopping production of rwd cars in favour of the Mondeo,was in not throwing out all the loss making Austin Morris designs and just concentrating on making rwd cars to compete with BMW.

However it’s the V 8 that has the advantage in most cases over the inline 6 (although having said that in this case the Volvo engine seems to have won out with a better combination of bore/stroke ratio and probably some boost differences ) ‘unless’ the no compromise,but more expensive, route of the best of all worlds combination of the V 12 is chosen.Which is why the Spitfire (or most other things that need some serious power were never fitted with an inline 6 or inline 8 or a V 8. (And they sound better too)

youtube.com/watch?v=NTSVRr4LpGs

youtube.com/watch?v=26cSk60A … re=related

youtube.com/watch?v=xBtwSoyW … re=related

[nb12]

I was always under the impression that a “V” engine layout produced MORE torque than an inline engine. Is this not to do with the way the power is delivered, as the power pulses are staggered more due to the angle of the cylinders.

[big_joe]

ellies dad:
@big Joe,will you go for one of the new Detroit diesels in a few years time,heard they are a good engine.

I’d like to, they sound very promising and I love the look of the new truck. So as long as the DVLA play ball with my licence I’ll be in one in a year or two

NB12:
I was always under the impression that a “V” engine layout produced MORE torque than an inline engine. Is this not to do with the way the power is delivered, as the power pulses are staggered more due to the angle of the cylinders.

I read an article written on the new Merc truck diesel, one of their reasons for ditching the V formation was the maximum levels of torque that they could produce, as they could get far more out of inline engines. I’ve seen it written somewhere else that the angle of the V has a bearing on this.

[denis_f]

ellies dad:
@big Joe,will you go for one of the new Detroit diesels in a few years time,heard they are a good engine.

is that the same as the ones they put in Bedford TM’s ? If so I want one!

[moose]

NB12:
I was always under the impression that a “V” engine layout produced MORE torque than an inline engine. Is this not to do with the way the power is delivered, as the power pulses are staggered more due to the angle of the cylinders.

i was always under the impression that “V” engines produced LESS torque than an inline engine
this is due to the shorter stroke of the piston/crankshaft!

[carryfast]

Moose:

NB12:
I was always under the impression that a “V” engine layout produced MORE torque than an inline engine. Is this not to do with the way the power is delivered, as the power pulses are staggered more due to the angle of the cylinders.

i was always under the impression that “V” engines produced LESS torque than an inline engine
this is due to the shorter stroke of the piston/crankshaft!

In the real world the V configuration doesn’t put any more restraints on bore/stroke ratios sufficient to get good specific torque figures than the inline design does.It seems obvious that Scania probably won’t stop where it is with further developments of it’s V 8 technology.There’s very little seperating the the Volvo and the Scania now let alone with a bit of further development research.

dieselnews.com.au/2011/11/sc … -reviewed/

[big_joe]

Carryfast:
dieselnews.com.au/2011/11/sc … -reviewed/

So same gross weight, same route, same V8 engine, same spec truck, just different horse power.
560hp 4.27 mpg
620hp 4.01 mpg
730hp 3.95 mpg
Kinda blows out of the water the argument about big HP V8’s being more economical

[carryfast]

Big Joe:

Carryfast:
dieselnews.com.au/2011/11/sc … -reviewed/

So same gross weight, same route, same V8 engine, same spec truck, just different horse power.
560hp 4.27 mpg
620hp 4.01 mpg
730hp 3.95 mpg
Kinda blows out of the water the argument about big HP V8’s being more economical

Not exactly the same thing as I’m saying in rev limiting the 620 to around 1,200 rpm by short shifting it.I think that test was probably all about using the extra power in each example to it’s full potential than just getting exactly the same as a 480 can provide,under uk conditions,but using the much lower rpm that the 620 would need to do it.

The idea of derating a more powerful truck to get the same productivety but better economy than a less powerful one is nothing new.It’s just based on the simple idea of more power at less rpm which is what most modern truck engine technology is based on anyway.

[switchlogic]

Carryfast:

davev8500:
hi all,feel i need to reply to rikki,im on my 8th v8 scania ,now running a 620 on containers,have always been told never never let a v8 lug 1200,1300 revs half a split and wind it back up to 1500rpm.

44 t Gross .It’s putting out around 450 hp at 1,100 rpm and over 500 hp at 1,200 rpm.Why would you ever need to run it up to 1,500 rpm at uk weights. If it’s doing nearly 8.0 mpg now what would it do if you short shift it in each gear going up the box at 1,200 rpm.

Oh Carryfast you do excel yourself. So you, a man who doesn’t seen to have driven a truck in years, who didn’t seen to have that much variety when you did, who’s never run his own trucks and has probably never even sat in a V8 Scania let alone drove one telling a man who’s owned 8 how to drive them. Good work

[carryfast]

switchlogic:

Carryfast:

davev8500:
hi all,feel i need to reply to rikki,im on my 8th v8 scania ,now running a 620 on containers,have always been told never never let a v8 lug 1200,1300 revs half a split and wind it back up to 1500rpm.

44 t Gross .It’s putting out around 450 hp at 1,100 rpm and over 500 hp at 1,200 rpm.Why would you ever need to run it up to 1,500 rpm at uk weights. If it’s doing nearly 8.0 mpg now what would it do if you short shift it in each gear going up the box at 1,200 rpm.

Oh Carryfast you do excel yourself. So you, a man who doesn’t seen to have driven a truck in years, who didn’t seen to have that much variety when you did and has probably never even sat in a V8 Scania let alone drove one telling a man who’s owned 8 how to drive them. Good work

I suppose you’d be right if going from a 7.5 tonner Ford D series up to 635 bhp 18 Litre V 16 powered 38 tonner fire trucks between the age of 18 and 21 isn’t variety.

But I wouldn’t be surprised if he at least tried the idea and found out that I’m right and it’s saving him a few quid in diesel.

[switchlogic]

Carryfast:

switchlogic:

Carryfast:

davev8500:
hi all,feel i need to reply to rikki,im on my 8th v8 scania ,now running a 620 on containers,have always been told never never let a v8 lug 1200,1300 revs half a split and wind it back up to 1500rpm.

44 t Gross .It’s putting out around 450 hp at 1,100 rpm and over 500 hp at 1,200 rpm.Why would you ever need to run it up to 1,500 rpm at uk weights. If it’s doing nearly 8.0 mpg now what would it do if you short shift it in each gear going up the box at 1,200 rpm.

Oh Carryfast you do excel yourself. So you, a man who doesn’t seen to have driven a truck in years, who didn’t seen to have that much variety when you did and has probably never even sat in a V8 Scania let alone drove one telling a man who’s owned 8 how to drive them. Good work

I suppose you’d be right if going from a 7.5 tonner Ford D series up to 635 bhp 18 Litre V 16 powered 38 tonner fire trucks between the age of 18 and 21 isn’t variety.

But I wouldn’t be surprised if he at least tried the idea and found out that I’m right and it’s saving him a few quid in diesel.

So I am right, two trucks doesn’t make for much variety.

[happydaze]

Carryfast:

switchlogic:

Carryfast:

davev8500:
hi all,feel i need to reply to rikki,im on my 8th v8 scania ,now running a 620 on containers,have always been told never never let a v8 lug 1200,1300 revs half a split and wind it back up to 1500rpm.

44 t Gross .It’s putting out around 450 hp at 1,100 rpm and over 500 hp at 1,200 rpm.Why would you ever need to run it up to 1,500 rpm at uk weights. If it’s doing nearly 8.0 mpg now what would it do if you short shift it in each gear going up the box at 1,200 rpm.

Oh Carryfast you do excel yourself. So you, a man who doesn’t seen to have driven a truck in years, who didn’t seen to have that much variety when you did and has probably never even sat in a V8 Scania let alone drove one telling a man who’s owned 8 how to drive them. Good work

I suppose you’d be right if going from a 7.5 tonner Ford D series up to 635 bhp 18 Litre V 16 powered 38 tonner fire trucks between the age of 18 and 21 isn’t variety.

But I wouldn’t be surprised if he at least tried the idea and found out that I’m right and it’s saving him a few quid in diesel.

Why do you care? It’s not your diesel.

[switchlogic]

And I doubt he’ll take your advice if he’s got any sense. Something your lacking.

[carryfast]

switchlogic:

Carryfast:

switchlogic:

Carryfast:

davev8500:
hi all,feel i need to reply to rikki,im on my 8th v8 scania ,now running a 620 on containers,have always been told never never let a v8 lug 1200,1300 revs half a split and wind it back up to 1500rpm.

44 t Gross .It’s putting out around 450 hp at 1,100 rpm and over 500 hp at 1,200 rpm.Why would you ever need to run it up to 1,500 rpm at uk weights. If it’s doing nearly 8.0 mpg now what would it do if you short shift it in each gear going up the box at 1,200 rpm.

Oh Carryfast you do excel yourself. So you, a man who doesn’t seen to have driven a truck in years, who didn’t seen to have that much variety when you did and has probably never even sat in a V8 Scania let alone drove one telling a man who’s owned 8 how to drive them. Good work

I suppose you’d be right if going from a 7.5 tonner Ford D series up to 635 bhp 18 Litre V 16 powered 38 tonner fire trucks between the age of 18 and 21 isn’t variety.

But I wouldn’t be surprised if he at least tried the idea and found out that I’m right and it’s saving him a few quid in diesel.

So I am right, two trucks doesn’t make for much variety.

There were quite a few others that came after that though or I’d be a lot poorer now.

[carryfast]

Happydaze:

Carryfast:

switchlogic:

Carryfast:

davev8500:
hi all,feel i need to reply to rikki,im on my 8th v8 scania ,now running a 620 on containers,have always been told never never let a v8 lug 1200,1300 revs half a split and wind it back up to 1500rpm.

44 t Gross .It’s putting out around 450 hp at 1,100 rpm and over 500 hp at 1,200 rpm.Why would you ever need to run it up to 1,500 rpm at uk weights. If it’s doing nearly 8.0 mpg now what would it do if you short shift it in each gear going up the box at 1,200 rpm.

Oh Carryfast you do excel yourself. So you, a man who doesn’t seen to have driven a truck in years, who didn’t seen to have that much variety when you did and has probably never even sat in a V8 Scania let alone drove one telling a man who’s owned 8 how to drive them. Good work

I suppose you’d be right if going from a 7.5 tonner Ford D series up to 635 bhp 18 Litre V 16 powered 38 tonner fire trucks between the age of 18 and 21 isn’t variety.

But I wouldn’t be surprised if he at least tried the idea and found out that I’m right and it’s saving him a few quid in diesel.

Why do you care? It’s not your diesel.

I don’t but it might have added some confirmation of the idea that effectively derating a 620 by not running it over 1,200 rpm ‘might’ be more economical than using a 480 to do the same job.

[switchlogic]

Carryfast:

Happydaze:

Carryfast:

switchlogic:

Carryfast:

davev8500:
hi all,feel i need to reply to rikki,im on my 8th v8 scania ,now running a 620 on containers,have always been told never never let a v8 lug 1200,1300 revs half a split and wind it back up to 1500rpm.

44 t Gross .It’s putting out around 450 hp at 1,100 rpm and over 500 hp at 1,200 rpm.Why would you ever need to run it up to 1,500 rpm at uk weights. If it’s doing nearly 8.0 mpg now what would it do if you short shift it in each gear going up the box at 1,200 rpm.

Oh Carryfast you do excel yourself. So you, a man who doesn’t seen to have driven a truck in years, who didn’t seen to have that much variety when you did and has probably never even sat in a V8 Scania let alone drove one telling a man who’s owned 8 how to drive them. Good work

I suppose you’d be right if going from a 7.5 tonner Ford D series up to 635 bhp 18 Litre V 16 powered 38 tonner fire trucks between the age of 18 and 21 isn’t variety.

But I wouldn’t be surprised if he at least tried the idea and found out that I’m right and it’s saving him a few quid in diesel.

Why do you care? It’s not your diesel.

I don’t but it might have added some confirmation of the idea that effectively derating a 620 by not running it over 1,200 rpm ‘might’ be more economical than using a 480 to do the same job.

Quick Carryfast tell Scania/Mercedes/Volvo etc at once! I’m sure they haven’t thought of trying that. Your a genius

[carryfast]

switchlogic:

Carryfast:

Happydaze:

Carryfast:

switchlogic:

Carryfast:

davev8500:
hi all,feel i need to reply to rikki,im on my 8th v8 scania ,now running a 620 on containers,have always been told never never let a v8 lug 1200,1300 revs half a split and wind it back up to 1500rpm.

44 t Gross .It’s putting out around 450 hp at 1,100 rpm and over 500 hp at 1,200 rpm.Why would you ever need to run it up to 1,500 rpm at uk weights. If it’s doing nearly 8.0 mpg now what would it do if you short shift it in each gear going up the box at 1,200 rpm.

Oh Carryfast you do excel yourself. So you, a man who doesn’t seen to have driven a truck in years, who didn’t seen to have that much variety when you did and has probably never even sat in a V8 Scania let alone drove one telling a man who’s owned 8 how to drive them. Good work

I suppose you’d be right if going from a 7.5 tonner Ford D series up to 635 bhp 18 Litre V 16 powered 38 tonner fire trucks between the age of 18 and 21 isn’t variety.

But I wouldn’t be surprised if he at least tried the idea and found out that I’m right and it’s saving him a few quid in diesel.

Why do you care? It’s not your diesel.

I don’t but it might have added some confirmation of the idea that effectively derating a 620 by not running it over 1,200 rpm ‘might’ be more economical than using a 480 to do the same job.

Quick Carryfast tell Scania/Mercedes/Volvo etc at once! I’m sure they haven’t thought of trying that. Your a genius

There are some things which they’d probably prefer to leave to their customers to work out for themselves.It’s more likely though thay have thought of suggesting the idea to the customers but there’s no way that there’d be enough demand to make the economies of scale needed to sort out the purchase price difference issue.

[switchlogic]

Rubbish. You think if they could improve fuel consumption in the way you reckon they wouldn’t do it? It’s not about ‘suggesting’ things to customers, it’s about putting things on the market and if Scania could get better fuel consumption from a V8 420 than a straight 6 don’t you think they would? Surely theres at least a micron of logic in your head somewhere…