Boost vs RPM vs Displacement - What's Best For Horsepower?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 лют 2024
- Is there no replacement for displacement if you want big horsepower?
Driving 215 MPH in A McLaren 720S - • I Drove 200 MPH On A P...
Subscribe to Engineering Explained for more videos! - goo.gl/VZstk7
If you limit yourself to fuel you can find at any gas pump, and the air we live and breathe, and the four-strokes engines that most vehicles operate on, there are really three fundamental ways to increase the amount of power an engine produces.
- Displacement
- RPM
- Pressure (Forced Induction/Boost)
Arguably, there are many, many ways you can alter how much power an engine makes, but ultimately, it’s a matter of getting as much air as possible, and combining it with the right amount of fuel, and these are the big ways to make that happen. So the key metric we’re looking at: how much air do we have to work with? In this video we'll look at each of the three methods, the advantages and disadvantages, as well as examples of engines that use each method to their advantage.
All of this while driving the McLaren 750S, and absolute powerhouse of a supercar cranking out 740 horsepower from a twin-turbo 4.0L V8 revving to 8,500 RPM. I'll test drive the McLaren on some of Nevada's finest roads, as well as at a race track in Las Vegas.
Related Videos:
McLaren Supercar Suspension - • The McLaren 720S Suspe...
Driving a McLaren at 200 MPH - • I Drove 200 MPH On A P...
McLaren Doesn't Use Sway Bars - • McLaren's Unique Suspe...
Why McLaren Uses Open Diffs - • The McLaren P1 Has An ...
Engineering Explained is a participant in the Amazon Influencer Program.
Recommended Books & Car Products - amzn.to/2BrekJm
EE Shirts! - bit.ly/2BHsiuo
Don't forget to check out my other pages below!
Instagram: / engineeringexplained
Facebook: / engineeringexplained
Twitter: / jasonfenske13
EE Extra: / @engineeringexplainede... - Авто та транспорт
Okay what's your preference: RPM, Boost, or Displacement??
If you enjoyed this, here are some additional videos you may like!
McLaren Supercar Suspension - ua-cam.com/video/tkwL8lBo2e0/v-deo.html
Driving a McLaren at 200 MPH - ua-cam.com/video/mGM4ASvcm6M/v-deo.html
McLaren Doesn't Use Sway Bars - ua-cam.com/video/8AVBddY8ClM/v-deo.html
Why McLaren Uses Open Diffs - ua-cam.com/video/gBHmWZcnWwM/v-deo.html
Diesel with massive boost
I must say I never gave it much thought but displacement is my goat. im a Naturally aspirated kinda guy lol.
What about an engine allows it to rev higher?
Growing up with bikes, it's revs all the way. Keep it above 8000 all the time :)
I like a compromise of displacement and RPM.
Peak HP at 7000-8000rpm gives a sense of occasion and a reason to rev it out, but I also want enough torque to feel powerful at any RPM. And I don't want ANY throttle or turbo lag.
The way the Viper is 8.4L and the Koenigsegg TFG is 2L, and they both make about the same power is actually so insane.
In a sense, but one has to consider hoe antiquated the Viper V10 is. Its still a Pushrod engine with all the limitations the pumping of air entails. Thats just the part where things get more complex when comparing engines and powerplants.
Yes, but you only see Vipers winning races 😂 No one races Koenigseggs
No replacement for displacement. Complexity is generally an enemy of consistency and reliability.
Which one do you suppose has the longer TBO?
@@gwi8650 It depends on what the race is. If it's a drag then yeah the Viper will win but on a track maybe not so much.
"Can't really see what's behind you... Who cares! You're faster!" 😂😂😂😂
"All the new BMWs have hideous front grilles!"
"Not a problem if you keep everyone behind you."
The flaw in that logic is that between that massive wing acting as a spoiler and the stellar brakes, light weight and sticky tires, you are very likely to be rear-ended.
I'm also amused by that😂
Man you doing math calculations while driving a 720s on the rain must be some kind of achievement
750s*
The Plaid can do it all for you and faster ⚡️🇺🇸
@@larryc1616lol ok
This man is a professional he certainly has a script prepared
@@larryc1616And the plaid will do it whilst being completely soulless and bland
Today I was made aware of a 1.5 litre supercharged jetski making 310bhp. Can you imagine how much punishment that engine takes as the thing is smashed into the water every few seconds at 70mph.
Naturally I want it more than anything. Naturally I can't afford it as I spend all my money on tires.
PS Give me RPM all day.
Wow - brutal!! And yesss, team RPM! (Though I do love a big engine)
Got to be a way to contrive tyres onto some kind of amphibious jet ski thing as an excuse...
@@EngineeringExplainedMeanwhile you have beasts like Valkyrie, 6.5L V12 at 11,100 RPM
Idk if you can actually utilise that power in the water on such a lightweight craft?
Good plan, I'll work on it @@ApothecaryTerry
0:28 what a fantastic shot, capturing the lens flare popping through the wing. Top Gear quality shot, sir!
Thanks! 👌
It's b-roll provided by McLaren - all props to the film crew they hired!
James May thinks you drive very reasonably.
I'm glad we're all now standardizing our performance metrics on the Nissan Altima 🙌
😂😂😂
Altima drivers think they’re performance drivers with that janky CVT
@@Lancer_0010when it used to be a gtr zygote it could be considered a performance car but that was back in 05.
ROFLed at "Who cares, you're faster." Delightful. 🙂
RPM and short gears all day, as a tactile experience. The linear power band and short gears give the driver finer control of the power, and is extra rewarding when dialing in grip at corner traction limits.
"rpm and short gears" so...all noise, little movement 😂
@@viscountslappy5085you dont understand what you're talking about
I have been watching you for what feels like a decade. If I want an in-depth engineering explanation of "how it works" when it comes to any component or overall build, you're my source! So freakin' good.
I used to have a 77 Coupe DeVille street rod with a 512cu custom crate Cadillac V8. 5200 rpm redline and an absolute tire roasting torque monster.
Now I drive a Mustang with a 5.0L Gen 3 Coyote engine, 7600 rpm redline and 7 pounds of boost from an intercooled ProCharger P-1X supercharger. Doesn't have the tire roasting bottom end and the doesn't bark the tires when it shifts, but the perpetual acceleration is amazing
A Gen 3 Coyote fed 7psi doesn’t bark the tires when it shifts? Something sounds off there. That shiny should roast tires up through like 3rd or 4th gear changes.
@@ALMX5DP Definitely does not. Failed to mention it's a 10 speed auto. But at wide open throttle flat dry surface there's no slip after 1st or 2nd. 275/40R19 Michelin PS4S
Last dyno I had done was 620rwhp at 7600
@@DanielReyes-hz1qk oh interesting, wonder if there is something in the shift logic which softens the actual shift or something. I’d think that 620 wheel would roast a general summer tire at low speeds when the throttle is matted.
8.3L? Good LORD lol. That's awesome! Wish I could've seen and heard that!
@@ohheccwaddup3225 It was a beast. Custom mid length headers, dual 3 inch exhaust and Flow Master 50s (hot rod size). Had to drive it across a parking lot to an exhaust shop open headers....it was wild
Edit: shout out to Cad Company in Albuquerque for that crate engine, which, in their terms, was a relative 'powder puff' 😂
Good video! As one of the racing engine masters, Keith Duckworth (look him up if you've never heard of him) says. 'The way you get power out of an engine is. The size of the bang, multiplied by the amount of bangs you can get into a minute!'
One half of the geniuses from Cosworth who gave us years of title winning Formula 1 engines
No replacement for displacement! 😁 Great video. Something we argue about at work all the time.
electric engine
Love these kinds of comparison videos Jason
Keep them up!
Happy to hear it, thanks for watching!
You made me smile. Thanks for that. Genuine delight is contagious.
Hi Jason! Thank you for uploading today! I really like your videos and it continues to motivate me to pursue my mechanical engineering degree and career for the future. Thank you for always reminding me that one of my passions is learning about cars, and maybe driving more different cars in the future! Take Care!
“There’s no replacement for displacement.” Really holds true for instant lower end torque.
Hybrids and EVs beg to differ
@@MikeDiscussesYeah, but who the hell wants one of those?
@@MikeDiscusses yuck
@@LanguagesWithAndrew Wouldn't say no to a 918 or a P1...
@@LanguagesWithAndrew Looking at how much the P1, 918, Nevera or Gemera sells for, I'd say a lot of people do.
Interesting example for the differences between displacement, forced induction and fuel efficiency: when AMG changed from the 6.2L NA V8 to the 4L Biturbo, the smaller engine with the whole turbo, intercooler stuff was heavier than the 6.2.
It had more power and torque, and due to cylinder deactivation and smaller displacement did use a little less fuel in low load scenarios.
When the power was used, it didn't consume less fuel than the big V8. ti was right up there with it.
Another funny comparisson: i remember reading car tests of a sporty car magazine years ago. (It wasn't a direct comparisson, but they tested each car the same way) They really used the power the cars offered on tracks and in testing. The Mitubishi Lancer Evo (don't remember which # though) with it's 2L Turbo engine had the same fuel consumption than an E63AMG with the 6.2L V8.
So with a relly heavy right foot, both take the same amount of fuel even though one car was significantly smaller, lighter and had a smaller engine.
But why was that? Because the Evo used additional fuel to cool down the air fuel mixture to prevent problems. (i think EE has a video on why some engine need that and what it preents-> needs more fuel, and makes for a dirtier combustion. (soot around the exhaust)
I've got a W205 C63S with the 4 litre biturbo. The fuel economy difference with the older W204 6.2 NA isn't insignificant. Cruising down a motorway/interstate at legal-ish speeds gets over 30mpg, (and hovering around 2,000rpm with a nice V8 rumble) which I reckon is pretty good for a +500bhp V8. The W204 is down to 25mpg, but at least it sounds good. The correct answer for what is best is a V8.
@@jamesweatherley9215 As i said, in low load scenarios it uses a little less fuel.
That said, i drive my E63 over the whole year with a little over 19 mpg (had to convert it to us mpg as we use a different metric).
Calculated via the fuel filled in and the distanced done with each tank of fuel, not by the instrument panel.
And the lowest i did over a full tank were a bit over 22 mpg. (with 4 people in the car, in above 30°C temps and going 240kph in neighbouring germany for a short time. =above 86°F, 150mph)
Oh, and yes i agree fully, V8 is best.
This helped me finally grasp how an engine works!! great video man!
You really helped me understand how engines are built and how they can be tuned , well done , it was all a mystery before for me
Loved the smile at the noise it makes.
DIN 66036 defines one metric horsepower as the power to raise a mass of 75 kilograms against the Earth's gravitational force over a distance of one metre in one second: 75 kg × 9.80665 m/s2 × 1 m / 1 s = 75 kgf ⋅m/s = 1 PS. This is equivalent to 735.49875 W, or 98.6% of an imperial mechanical horsepower.
Huh. I thought it was calculated the same way, but you had use a metric horse (where its head length matched the length of Queen Victoria's arm, or something like that).
@@scottboettcher1344 For a metric unit it really is weirdly arbitrary as if 75kg (not a multiple of 10, 100 or 1000) was chosen to give a result very similar to HP. I wonder what the problem is with just using KW.
@@reggiedixon2 1 KW is significantly lower number than 1horsepower and marketing is about bigger numbers always
kW is a better unit in my opinion, but at least we have a standardized definition against the SI units
That's an abomination of a unit. For one, it's not truly metric. For another, it's just going to get mixed up with real horsepower, not only by the name but by how it's only 1.4% smaller so the numbers will sound reasonable but be slightly off. If you're going to go metric, kilowatts are the unit to use.
Love your work, Jason 👍
13:23 Blessings to you for your great mic setup 🙏
The oder I get, the more I learned to appreciate displacement. Much more fun to drive if you're not a track focused person.
Agreed - it's great!
Now you need to try 2 electric motors, one on each axle with instant torque. Charge it in your garage. Test drives are free.
And high revs is best for track focused fun! Turbo has to be the least enjoyable to drive from a pure enthusiast perspective
I'd say turbo is a good daily car, small light engine, lots of boost, turbo lag can be fun
@@tturi2it is not physically small or light.
Had sound error before, sounds perfect now.
Excellent, happy to... hear it!
Love this analysis, thanks Jason.
I've learnt so much from you over the last 5+ years
I often wonder why power to weight ratio isn’t the most important number for any of these discussions. It doesn’t matter as much how you get to 700 hp if your vehicle is 6000 pounds.
Edit: what I mean to say is, this video is about how power is generated, and that’s fine, but there aren’t very many discussions about power to wait, and to me, that would seem to be the most important consideration.
Weight wasn’t part of the discussion. How power is produced is the topic.
@@ALMX5DP oh, I’m not suggesting that that is a flaw in this video, I understand it’s only about power generation. I just find it interesting that manufacturers almost never talk power to weight when they sell their vehicles. Seeing a video that is all about how power is generated inspired me to ask the question, or make the comment. When I referenced “en these discussions”, what I mean to say is, people talk about power all the time, but only about 20% of the time is power to weight referenced.
@@EliotHochberg ah gotcha, yeah I definitely agree. I’m a fan of focusing on power to weight and especially the weight aspect as that helps improve braking, handling and benefits wear and tear of various components and aspects too.
That's why the Bugatti needed 1000 horsepower plus. Because its a 4500 pound porker.
@@Markbell73No, it's because it's engineered for the highest top speed. Power to weight is very important at lower speeds, but at higher speeds outright power and low drag coeffient is required for continued good acceleration.
What any kook would do with a 750hp RWD car in the rain? Powerslides! Jason? A video…😂 BTW nice video, thanks for posting.
750hp rwd in the rain doesn't mean you go sideways at the lightest touch of the pedal.
It just means you tap the accelerator slowly with controlled steering inputs.
I'm sure the car also has a rain mode setting for easier driving in the rain.
Having said that it is also sad you can't safely make the vroom vroom sounds for the camera in a car that wants to sing!
This reminds me, I'd love your take on Porsche Active Ride. This was a great video, and that blue color on the car is GORGEOUS!
I was thinking to make a research about this topic the last night and now EE just read my mind ❤
The grea thing about an engine that relies on size to make horsepower is that once it hits the sales room, the aftermarket can take care of the other two techniques for massive power 😁
If you wanna spend 10-15k into an engine, making it less reliable, go ahead. I like well built factory engines that are already well optimized
I find in heavier cars forced induction is the way to go but in lightweight sports cars naturally aspirated engines give the best balance and fun 🤷🏻♂️ horses for courses.
I like this explanation very easy to understand, and i kinda prefer displacement rather than boost, gota love an NA V8.
Rpm and boost. I can't decide between the 2. Displacement is only good for a raw muscle sounds in my opinion.
I love the sheer enjoyment when you rolled down the window! Totally awesome dude!
You've just proved American cars mostly turn gasoline into nothing. I never thought of being able to destroy energy until you mentioned that Viper engine LOL
Not true at all, does the coyote not ring a bell?
Imagine being such a brand loyalty sheep you become a nation brand loyalty sheep. Yikes.
"Who cares, you're faster."
Fab video. Succinctly explained and a great tribute to the 750s.
Good episode. This is classic Jason.
Came for the maths stayed for the McLaren.
Great video on breaking it all down !
EXELENT as usual 😊
Perfect timing.Was just in the market for a 750S.
That thing sounds amazing!
That looked like a lot of fun! Have you done a video on the impact of v-angle on engine performance?
Steve Morris knows it is a combo of all 3
The goat
Funny most people run pro line... not steve morris and his crap
i dont remember anyone else having a faster drag and drive time. SMX 5 sec 1/4 mile and can go thru the drive thru. no one else on the planet has done this before. So who? @@S2KCYA
ugr runs 3500whp @ 10krpm, all proline engine
Top fuel fragsters dont use steve morris lol
That looks delicious 😋. Other dishes I must try from you. Thanks Matt
This is really good information thank you
The viper’s numbers at 8:30 for volumetric airflow are really the ideal numbers if it had perfect volumetric efficiency, and the fact that it is so much more than the other engines despite making the same power as the t.50 shows that it should really be making more like 750-800 hp if the heads could flow better
I will say Jason that almost everything in life is optimised for a particular task, if you gain in one area you will often lose in another. I'd suggest that as fast as the Bugatti is at the 1/4 mile, it wasn't the focus of the designers, but he McLaren designers could pay more attention here because what they wanted to do was more attainable.
Thumbs up though.
This was supper interesting thank you💜💜
Thank you for this video!
I really want to know what I need to study to work with those kind of equations, I love all of this!
Simple. Stay in school
Someone got a new McLaren. Proud of you my friend. Thanks for the education as always.
What are you talking about...
Loved the video bro ! But you missed on that the 750s got a limited slip differential (LSD) which in theory should help with better 1\4 mile time
A good explanation on why nitrious/pure oxygen isnt a reliable option [or even the fuel alternatives].
You remind me of an old story. A famous motorcycle racer was talking to the tuner at the end of the season. "I barely held off the completion on the last couple of races. I must have more power next year, so how are you going to do that? Answer was Very simple Kenny-san, want more power - burn more gasoline!" Which is the reverse side of your description, and funny to boot.
A turbo isn’t powered by heat from the exhaust. It is powered by the huge increase in back pressure.
It'd be interesting to have you talk about Subaru with their 2.4 liter turbo engines, also using boost, cvt contributing to keeping in the best torque range, in a decent displacement.
Nice explanation!
I get my fix for power and acceleration from superbikes at the track where lack of mass and RPM is king. I do sometimes ride them on the street, but having access to that much power and acceleration and not being able to use it without risking jail time or death is a constant sensation of being blue-balled, that does get old real fast.
For a street car, my 981 Porsche Boxster GTS gives me all the thrills while still keeping it mostly legal. Its a great formula with a little bit of displacement, 3.4L with a little bit of rpms at 8k, combined with the increased sensation of speed from a convertible, and the super low CG from a naturally low sitting Boxer engine, and the best position to mount the engine rear-mid with RWD.
What I learned from this video is that the ability for an engine to make power and how immediately it can make power is dance between the rate it processes air, how much air is processed per cycle, and how compressed that cycle of air is when ignited.
Based off the nature of how ICE engines are used in cars it makes sense that turbos have taken over in road cars, since the wide range of speeds they operate encourage a broad torque curve thats less easily achievable with high displacement engines.
In a similar sense, that reveals why aviation engines are often so massive in displacement. The amount processes per cycle at a constant low rpm is whats king in making a propeller aircraft perform at modest altitudes (turbos find introduction the higher you go)
And of course high rpm engines as key techniques make the most sense in motorsport and enthusiast cars because of the ease engine rpm can be transmitted into wheel rpm, and thus high speed performance, the same range of drivability not being needed in as wide an rpm range.
Aviation engines are similar to boat engines in that the reason you want large displacement is for reliability -- not necessarily for performance. Car engines can make really high peak power numbers, but absolutely not for seconds to minutes to hours at a time. Its why you'll see 20-30 liter engines making 2500hp; it sounds horrible, until you remember they can do that all day long. Larger bearings, larger pistons and rings, larger camshafts, larger oil capacities, larger areas to distribute heat, larger valves (and seats that wear slower) -- these all work together to make these engines exceptionally reliable at their highly limited peak power.
What I wish he mentioned in the video is that low RPM is highly preferable for engine reliability, such is the benefit of turbos. All those super high revving race engines don't last long at all.
Another metric is the temperature of the air being processed, which is half (or so) the trick of nitrous. Chills the mix and adds oxygen, adds boom, and 😊
That sound! Ohhhh…that lovely, lovely sound… 😁
I find it interesting that no one ever mentions that the GMA t50 is a hybrid. Not a huge power bump from the system, but it's there.
I watch every video you post and I learn a lot from you. Thank you. I guess I'm old school. I prefer a big engine that has been designed for torque, from idle to mid-range. Not interested in high RPM's. Don't care for turbos. Give me a super charger with a water to air cooler on a big block, any day.
Man how do you explain all these beautifully while driving a Mclaren? Like how do you concentrate man xdxd
Does anyone know if the rpm in the equation is max power at a certain rpm or max rpm of the engine overall? For example a motor may be about to rev out to 8600rpm but makes max power at 8000. So would you plug in the 8600 or the 8000?
I have been watching this channel for years and always wondered if Jason has a day job. He is definitely talented and smart. If I owned a car company I would hire him.
For a few years now, he left his engineering 'regular job' and only does these videos. He also does the editing and production work. There's a great interview of him on the Munro Live podcast a few months ago.
I admit I thought I knew most of this. I was wrong 😅 Thanks man
should have compared it to a 3.5L altima. Good video thanks for the knowledge.
I have always leaned toward displacement because of the three ways to make power it is the lowest stress and will most likely out last an similar output engine that either has to rev much higher or take a lot of boost to achieve. That said a big displacement motor can always be boosted for way more power and to a point reved a little higher so it has the most flexibility.
hey jason, love your videos very informative. Can you suggest a few books to help me learn more about high performance engines like the v10 formula 1 engines or supercar engines. I've already read a few from your recommendation list. I would like to dive deeper . Thank you.
2:44 I don't know about this specific analysis as a comparison for airflow. I think the efficiency of intake and exhaust flow vs rpm, vs boost, vs displacement seems much more relevant.
Because The L/min is not adressed as function of L/per rotation. But it is obviously still relevant for the question of engine power being made at a given moment.
The l/rotation is the same as l/revolution and the time part of that is implied in the unit, literally 'per second', like it was expressed in rev/minute or you could state it rotations/second.
Yes certainly. I apologize, I did not phrase that well and imagined people were following along from the prior statement.
I should have said something like: Because the L/min is not extrapolated from a more detailed scale. (Specifically, flow rate per rotation relative to the variables for each approach). It misses out on illustrating the differences across the 3 and suggests more parity than there is. (The line wasn't so much about the illustrated unit, but the process of having a smaller level of detail being examined then expanded.)
*Though it ended up just being sort of a cursory discussion as a lead in to talking about the 750S anyway. As opposed to his more detailed whiteboard discussions. Thinking about it now, Driving 4 Answers may have made a video on the topic more like my initial thought, so one could argue there isn't need to cover it in the same way regardless.
My preference is boost if I absolutely have to choose, but all three is the best!
Nice thing about more rpm/less torque is better traction on takeoff. Big blocks are hard on tires when you drop the hammer at the stop light
The amount of air pulled off the boundary layer at the pressurized area also accounts for some part of the equation also
Man I love your content but never get your notifications!
power rear window is great. del Sol has it too. definitely more cruiser and handling than power there though.
Great start! Now factor in compression ratio, the use of N2O, cam timing, valve spring weighting (pressure) and the use of lightweight sturdier components. When the engine is N/A, there are a number of things you (the builder) can do to make a large displacement engine still spin up to 8k rpm and produce large HP/Torque numbers.
The road he's on looks right out of the Road Rash game from Sega Genesis
The perfect Balance of all 3
Very enjoyable vid
Boosted Ford 5.0 on E85 has all three and it’s amazing. 1100+ HP
All three. good size engine, long stroke/bore ratio, high rpm, medium boost.
Very interesting information.
I've been wondering about saving fuel by towing.
Maybe one day you could release video explaining further problem:
Let's say we have 5 identical cars, that use 5L/100km of fuel.
Using only those cars (and some rope), what would be most efficient way to move all of them from point A to point B?
Gone is the white board in come Mclaren 750s you have come long way and well done, jealous much
Keeping the C8 (with its tried and true 6.2) and going to try and lightweight it myself!
I really like the 2.0L L4 engine that's in my wife's 2016 Volvo XC90.
Given the size the car (SUV) that that engine is trying to propel, I am amazed at how well that actually works given it has both a supercharger and a turbocharger. (235 kW @ 5700 rpm).
Cruising at 110 km/h - I can get 7.5 L/100 km (~31.36 mpg), which again -- given the size of the vehicle -- that's pretty good without any kind of electrified assistance.
What we need is excellent torque and power at low revs for tractability, a strong midrange to give you the thrust where you need it the most, and a screaming shockingly high revving top end to widen the powerband and give that feeling of endless power, and superb linear throttle response. In that case it is NA V12 all the way - Cosworth, Ferrari, Lambo, BMW S70/2, HWA - these have the best of all worlds.
But somehow by some witchcraft the nerds at Koenigsegg and Ferrari managed to make even a Turbocharged engine respond like an NA one.
I love the new white board. Great examples.
I know you have covered it before in a separate video(s), but i am surprised compression was not a 4th comparison. (Sort of the other side of RPM).
Bigger engine, higher rpm, higher compression, and boost.
I think boost should be as low as possible, the power to torque ratio should be at 0.5 or above and torque at max rpm should be at 90% peak torque or above, which ranks rpm higher than displacement and displacement higher than boost.
I tend to see peak power as a gimmick, as it only describes, up to which speed you can stay at peak wheel torque and how fast you can go.
I would aim for usable power at low rpm (primary with displacement, only minimal amounts of boost) and peak power with a power to torque ratio of at least 0.5. So peak power would in the end be mainly achieved by using higher rpm but you don't have to rely on rpm alone.
Let's say, you want to have about 70 kW at 2000 rpm. You need 335 Nm at 2000 rpm, which can be delivered with 3.0l displacement and about 0.1bar boost. Peak power should at least be at 167,5 kW or about 170 kW. If you are good at designing engines, you use the given limits and increase power with higher rpm, therefor flattening the torque curve. You should be able to reach at least ~240 kW at 7500 rpm.
To put this in to scale:
This translates into a range of displacements for normal road cars between 1,5l up to 3l (120 kW up to 240 kW), which one could claim to be reasonable.
A topic, rather seen on a D4A channel
One more thing about displacement vs rpm: consideration of main gear ratios. So 12000 rpm engine operating like 6000rpm engine of double displacement would not need to spin as slow at lower rpm and therefore the power will be equal along the whole range.
However! Here comes inertia and because of i^2 for the same dynamics the engine of half displacement and coresponding gearbox would need to be 4 times as "light" rotationally. Which is never the case
Nice seeing the Kiwi logo 😊
Nissan altima casually having the same wheel design CANNOT be a coincidence
12:14 "Nissan Altima, the Pinnacle of Performance, we all agree" 🤣 as a G35 driver, basically a nicer v6 Altima, this line absolutely cracked me up.
There are other trade offs between the 3 solutions that impact engine design such as size and shape, MPG (efficiency), emissions, and cost. BMW had great high RPM engines 15 years ago but they were trouble prone, poor low end torque and poor efficiency. Switching to twin turbo allowed reduced RPMs, greater torque and much greater efficiency.
High RPM can be so fun, was the best thing about the CBR 600RR I had. Making that engine sing with a modest exhaust was fun.
Crazy to think the Yamaha R1 can pump out 200HP in a 1L N.A. engine. The acceleration on those are absolutely brutal.
Also wild to think with the advancement in technology and parts availability, how "easy" 1000HP is to make these days.
Bro, MotoGP bikes are like 280hp from 1 liter motor.
@@vvevvevvvv True, I guess I was thinking more about pump gas power.