Engine Small Enough To Fit In A Carry On Bag

[Tudz]

Let's be accurate. That's not an engine, that's an engine block. An engine is the fully assembled mechanism. But... you knew that.

What this does remind me of is Soviet-era cars. The two-cylinder Volga was such a wonderful piece of machinery... and if you don't detect the sarcasm, that's complete sarcasm. If the socialists have their way completely everyone will be riding electric buses everywhere... buses that know where you're going and where you've been and keep Big Brother duly informed. That's where over regulation will send things. No need to outlaw ownership, just make it impossible to make and buy with and eventually nobody can have one - except the privileged in government, of course, because they need that stuff. After all, nobody really needs a car. Or money. Or freedom. They know what's best for everyone. Now, go stand in the bread line like a good little prole.

LOL, that's such a random rant given we're talking about engines. This is why the world thinks Americans are crazy, we talk about a small engine and someone comes along and compares it to soviet russia... God forbid someone might actually want a small and powerful engine, no, it must be some oppressive regime trying to steal your cars and your freedom.

Nah, that's not the case. My buddy had a Fiat Spider 1800 about 35 years back. We put electronic ignition, header, cams in it. Sounded like a motorcycle and would outrun most V8 cars of the day. Back then the motorcycles were not very fast either...hardly any could outrun it until the V-Max came out.

As well, Pontiac had the quad 4 and a turbo put it over 700 HP, it was used in Indy cars even.

Out of the factory the Fiat Spider still had well below 100HP per litre and while fast, probably wouldn't have beaten the V8s in any test of acceleration. Once you start fucking around with it, you throw rules out the window, people souped up the V8s back then as well.

I don't know my old motorcycles terrible well, but I know the 1973 Ducati 750 SS produced 73HP, so it was very close to 100hp/litre around 40 years ago without forced induction. There may be other engines that were better than that and broke 100hp/litre back in the day, I dunno.

First off, whenever you are talking about displacement, you cannot compare naturally aspirated with turbocharged engines.

The EFFECTIVE displacement will be the engine displacement multiplied by the peak boost pressure the turbocharger is capable of.

For about every 15PSI of boost, you have doubled the effective displacement of the engine. So that means you really have to compare this to a 2.0 liter engine. And if you say "BUT HERP TURBO BLOCK SO SMAWL COMPARED TO 2.0 LITER BLOCK DERP!", remember that turbochargers increase the size and weight of an engine not just because of the turbo unit itself (which isn't all that big), but the beefier exhaust manifold, the intercooler, and all of the plumbing required to connect the compressor to that and back to the intake.

Turbochargers also have a penalty of "soft" throttle response AND boost-threshold issues (where the engine feels very choked up until the turbo spools, since the compression ratio and effective displacement are so low off boost).

And yes, I've installed my own turbo kit before, and its a great way to improve power, but the drawbacks are some of the reasons you just don't see them on motorcycles.

TL;DR version: Forget about "horsepower per liter" on turbo engines and give them a penalty in real world size and weight when contrasting engines along with the negative of turbolag.

Well you can just add the qualifier "turbo charged", which is what I did The GSXR1000 you're looking at 191hp from 1 litre, naturally aspirated. Modified, still NA, I've seen people running them over 200hp, and turbo I've seen them running over 300hp (on cars). It's not like it's the only one, a few of the sportsbikes these days are pushing over 160hp from a 1 litre engine that would fit in to hand luggage if you stripped them down.

 

[Phoenix333]

Rather than spewing your ignorance and blaming the other, you could actually pay attention to the world around you and learn something.

I am hardly ignorant about events in the world. Maybe you should try asking questions more and making accusations less.

You know-like the fact that your cellphone is far more effective in tracking you than any vehicle and that it was good "conservatives" not liberals who pushed through the USA Patriot Act which already allows the government to easily track you that way (look it up).

And it was the good "liberals" that did not repeal it, and have turned the DHS into the precursor to the American version of the Nazi SS, and the TSA has been turned into a form of Gestapo. Notice that in my original post I used the term socialists. Did you think I meant American politics specifically? Did I mention any specific political party? I don't care what political ideology someone claims to have. If the result is the government restricting liberty then I am opposed to it. Socialism historically falls into that category. I also have no use for cell phones, just as I have no use for political ideologues that must turn every issue into an excuse to soapbox. Surely that's not your intent here?

 

[Phoenix333]

we talk about a small engine and someone comes along and compares it to soviet russia...

Soviet Russia did have small engines. This is a small engine. Am I not allowed to speak of the general trend in engine manufacture and the result that regulations have had on engine design and production? Regulate things to a point and eventually nobody has any choice anymore. Don't you like to have some choice in what's available? If not, the bread line is waiting I suppose. If you think there are not people in governments that want control over people's lives then you're only fooling yourself. I, on the other hand, don't like people telling me what I can and cannot do. I suppose that's an old-fashioned mindset, but then, I'm positively ancient when it comes to that sort of thing. Don't expect me to change any time soon.

God forbid someone might actually want a small and powerful engine, no, it must be some oppressive regime trying to steal your cars and your freedom.

I have nothing against high efficiency through good engineering. If you can make a small engine that is legitimately powerful I have no problem with it, but there is no substitute for displacement when it comes to power. You'll never see a vehicle with an engine pulled from a Civic hailing a 53' freight box. You can augment a piston engine only to a certain point. Sooner or later you'll hit a wall. It's called the laws of physics.

 

[Tudz]

Soviet Russia did have small engines. This is a small engine. Am I not allowed to speak of the general trend in engine manufacture and the result that regulations have had on engine design and production? Regulate things to a point and eventually nobody has any choice anymore. Don't you like to have some choice in what's available? If not, the bread line is waiting I suppose. If you think there are not people in governments that want control over people's lives then you're only fooling yourself. I, on the other hand, don't like people telling me what I can and cannot do. I suppose that's an old-fashioned mindset, but then, I'm positively ancient when it comes to that sort of thing. Don't expect me to change any time soon.

There's nothing in this thread or the linked article about regulation until you introduced it. People use small engines for reasons other than regulation.

I have nothing against high efficiency through good engineering. If you can make a small engine that is legitimately powerful I have no problem with it, but there is no substitute for displacement when it comes to power. You'll never see a vehicle with an engine pulled from a Civic hailing a 53' freight box. You can augment a piston engine only to a certain point. Sooner or later you'll hit a wall. It's called the laws of physics.

Yes, there is a substitute for displacement, it's called forced induction, high compression ratios and high RPM.

Of course you still match the engine size to it's task, largely because of material limits, I'm not sure what that even needs to be mentioned. You won't see a 450cc engine pulling an SUV, you won't see a 1.3L in a truck, you won't see a 3.6L V6 pulling an 18 wheeler, you won't see a big block chevy engine pulling a cargo ship. However those engines find their purpose in dirt bikes, sports bikes/small cars, family cars, trucks/muscle cars respectively. On the flip size it's a bit stupid to put a big block V8 on a go kart and good luck fitting 90,000hp, 25,000 litre oil tanker engine in to your truck.

 

[Phoenix333]

Yes, I introduced regulation into the thread. I said that small engine reminded me of Soviet-era cars, which reminds me of what regulation in the West has been doing to engine size in many cars. That's simply discussing associated topics, much like your mentioning of oil tanker engines. I could equally say that marine vehicles were not introduced until you mentioned it, but what's the point of that beyond splitting hairs? As for forced induction, RPM's, and compression ratios... those are enhancements to an engine, not a substitute for bore diameter, stroke length, and cylinder count Small engines have their place, just as large engines have their place. I'm not sure why you're attempting to dispute with me something that I understand.

 

[Tudz]

Yes, I introduced regulation into the thread. I said that small engine reminded me of Soviet-era cars, which reminds me of what regulation in the West has been doing to engine size in many cars. That's simply discussing associated topics, much like your mentioning of oil tanker engines. I could equally say that marine vehicles were not introduced until you mentioned it, but what's the point of that beyond splitting hairs

LOL, you can rant about whatever you like, but don't be surprised when people laugh at the randomness of your rant. Talking about an oil tanker engine in a discussion about engines is like talking about a poodle in a discussion about dogs which started by talking about german shepherds. Ranting about soviet russia and regulation is like ranting about nazis in a thread about dogs started by talking about german shepherds, coz, ya know, germans and all. Do what you will, but don't be surprised when I'm left laughing

As for forced induction, RPM's, and compression ratios... those are enhancements to an engine, not a substitute for bore diameter, stroke length, and cylinder count Small engines have their place, just as large engines have their place. I'm not sure why you're attempting to dispute with me something that I understand.

I'm "attempting" to continue a line of discussion (opposed to any real "dispute") with you because of the way you structured your paragraph, perhaps you should be less confrontational or maybe just don't mention things at all if you don't want discussion about the topics you raise.

Forced induction, high RPM and high compression is a substitute for displacement, coz the effect of displacement is having a larger intake of air and fuel, and the former 2 substitutes allow a higher intake of air and fuel for the same displacement and the latter substitute allows for higher thermodynamic efficiency for a given displacement. They're substitutes kinda like margarine is a substitute for better, it is a substitute, just not a perfect substitute suited to all situtations

 

[Phoenix333]

Do what you will, but don't be surprised when I'm left laughing

Well if my randomness brightened your day a bit, then it served a purpose. I'm fine with that.

I'm "attempting" to continue a line of discussion (opposed to any real "dispute") with you because of the way you structured your paragraph, perhaps you should be less confrontational or maybe just don't mention things at all if you don't want discussion about the topics you raise.

I've been told that I have a tendency to be overly analytical. My apologies for the confusion.

it is a substitute, just not a perfect substitute suited to all situtations

I understand what you're saying. I suppose it's more a matter of perspective, and there's always going to be limitations and trade-offs. Certainly you can force more HP out of a small engine this way, but you're increasing pressure and stress on the engine to do so. This results in increased wear and faster component failure rates, unless more expensive and durable materials are used. I suppose I favor a certain degree of durability in everything.

 

[Tudz]

Well if my randomness brightened your day a bit, then it served a purpose. I'm fine with that.


I've been told that I have a tendency to be overly analytical. My apologies for the confusion.

No worries, I probably went a bit silly myself

I understand what you're saying. I suppose it's more a matter of perspective, and there's always going to be limitations and trade-offs. Certainly you can force more HP out of a small engine this way, but you're increasing pressure and stress on the engine to do so. This results in increased wear and faster component failure rates, unless more expensive and durable materials are used. I suppose I favor a certain degree of durability in everything.

Yeah no doubt, it's all a trade off. But I can tell you from personal experience, when you can get an engine that only weighs 90kg and is 1 litre, allowing you to build a 500kg car around it, but it still produces 200+hp, the result is pretty friggin insane (in a good and enjoyable way ). The main advantage of a low displacement and light engine is it allows you to take advantage of all the benefits of a light weight vehicle to go with it. I will admit I come from the race car side of things, and the team I was on, just the year before I left, we swapped to a smaller and lighter engine and massively improved performance because it wasn't just a case of "oh, now the engine is 20kg lighter", it meant "oh, now we can make this lighter and that lighter and move this to there and still keep a good weight balance and WOW this thing is now a lot faster".

But of course I still appreciate massive displacement, different horses for different courses I always say I love my muscle cars, the first car I drove was a family car my Dad owned with a powerful V8 shoved in to it and I'm currently in the market for a new late 60's muscle car.

 

[BBA]

it was good "conservatives" not liberals who pushed through the USA Patriot Act which already allows the government to easily track you that way (look it up).

You are misinformed. It was called for by nearly all Americans, introduced by Daschle (D), Sarbanes (D) and Lott (R), both houses were democrat controlled.


Thanks for playing.

 

[BBA]

1.0 is perfect for making a commuter vehicle. What most in the US don't realize much of this new tech is coming over from Europe and Asia where smaller displacements and vehicles rule the road.

Smaller vehicles is the key over there, but it doesnt work in Germany. Our roads are not made for 'small' either.

 

[eViL_M@LuM]

Ah ok.

My thinking was that Ford was making a small, subcompact that will slot below the Fiesta.

It's funny that today Ford says that small cars are cutting into profits for the company. The problem is because more and more people are buying more efficient smaller cars and compact SUVs since trucks and truck-based SUVs are not selling as much as they used to.

Engines like these are usually underpowered, but 120 HP is pretty good. Sometimes I've seen them with much less horsepower.

It's quicker 0-62 than the current 1.6L in the focus. It will also be available in the Fiesta.

 

[octoberasian]

It's quicker 0-62 than the current 1.6L in the focus. It will also be available in the Fiesta.

Yeah, just saw that news on Autoblog.com today that the Fiesta will get this engine.

They believe it'll hit 45 MPG, the highest for a non-hybrid vehicle to date.

 

[octoberasian]

Speaking of which, did Steve answer what kind of car is getting that 502 engine?