ALMS 2011 Discussion

[Purist]

They can be made to work. Mercedes-Benz has a honking 6.2-litre V8 in the SLS AMG, and it does alright on mileage in GT3. Funny thing there is, the Audi R8 actually has been stated point blank as having the worst mileage in that class.

In GT2, the Corvette was competitive using the 6.2-litre lump in 2009.

The Panoz roadster had a push-rod V8, and while not quite up to the mileage of the R8's twin turbo unit, it certainly wasn't "out to lunch". And Chrysler had some pretty darn good motive power from that Mopar-modified V8 in their LMP900.

[Victor_RO]

Originally Posted by arakis

i dont think it would work, even if they suceed in equalising different petrol engine sizes, the huge american V8 would still use fuel like it still cost 10c a gallon

Are we forgetting the LS7.R?

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by Victor_RO

Are we forgetting the LS7.R?

I thought they were discussing about prototypes, not GTs

[Victor_RO]

Originally Posted by Chiana

I thought they were discussing about prototypes, not GTs

Yeah, but didn't that engine have similar performance and fuel efficiency figures in GT1 trim to the Aston Martin V12 which was actually used in LMP1?

[arakis]

IIRC audi has a 25% larger fuel tank.

[Nick6]

Bigger engines doesn't always mean worse fuel mileage.

[Fogelhund]

Originally Posted by arakis

i dont think it would work, even if they suceed in equalising different petrol engine sizes, the huge american V8 would still use fuel like it still cost 10c a gallon

Ask the people at the fence if they care.

[JHamilton]

Originally Posted by Nick6

Bigger engines doesn't always mean worse fuel mileage.

^ This. My LS2, which is what is in the back of the LMPCs, gets 25 mpg highway consistantly and I have gotten 27 mph over 200 miles. Try that with your BMW strait 6 (and other great engines, just picked that one). Also, many people equate engine displacement/weight with physical volume. They have nothing to do with each other as OHV engines are actually very compact and are competitive in weight with other designs (although the COG is pretty high).

Wow - how's that for OT. Sorry, I like pushrods.

Originally Posted by Fogelhund

Ask the people at the fence if they care.

^ And this. I like loud, fast, flame spitting, popping and snapping racecars. For me, I like the cars first, racing second, and drivers/teams third. I am a car nerd first and while I know that there are other that would put the items above in another order, there are also many people like me.

[arakis]

actually bigger engines means worse fuel milage, almost by deffiniton.

in a same car, same engine technologi a 2.5l engine would always have better fuel milaeg as a 5+l engine.

P.S. corvet has a much better drag coficient, and less frontal area then BMW witch reduces fuel milage alot

example bmw 528 6cyl, 2.8l auto. 32MPG highway
BMW 550 V8, 4.4l manual 22MPG highway

its quite easily explaind if you understand that for a economic run you dont need more then 100-150hp, and smaller engines are much more efficient at producing those numbers,

smaller displacement engine has less mass to move around(smaller cylinders), and a less frictional area(also smaller cylinders) so also it consumes less fuel for the same hp.

also low reving large cylindar engines (old school mucle cars) are nutorius for consuming huge amounts of fuel

[fieldodreams79]

^ Then let a bunch of V8 powered protos make a few more pit stops because of "crappy" fuel mileage and at the same time, they can make a great amount of fantastic noise, lay down loads of black marks on the pavement and smoke the tires under acceleration while putting on one helluva show.

[CTD]

Originally Posted by arakis

actually bigger engines means worse fuel milage, almost by deffiniton.

in a same car, same engine technologi a 2.5l engine would always have better fuel milaeg as a 5+l engine.

P.S. corvet has a much better drag coficient, and less frontal area then BMW witch reduces fuel milage alot

example bmw 528 6cyl, 2.8l auto. 32MPG highway
BMW 550 V8, 4.4l manual 22MPG highway

its quite easily explaind if you understand that for teh economic run you dint neem more then 100-150hp, and smaller engines are much more efficient at producing those numbers,

smaller engine has less mass to move around, and a less frictional area so also it consumes less fuel for the same hp.

When making an comparison yourself, please notice you are comparing a Automatic vs. a manual, eventhough it's not everything, it is still some.

[arakis]

Originally Posted by CTD

When making an comparison yourself, please notice you are comparing a Automatic vs. a manual, eventhough it's not everything, it is still some.

mhm, but IIRC a auto matic consumes more then a manal, and in the comparison I pupesly added the manual for the larger engine and auto for the smaller

[Accident]

In pretty standard, low-load driving a smaller motor will generally offer better fuel mileage, but when you start running a motor at peak power or put it under a load (heavier car, more drag, more rolling resistance, etc) it is not always the case.

A smaller motor needs to turn a lot more RPM to make comparable power to a larger displacement engine. Even if it is a smaller fuel squirt, every rotation uses fuel.

[arakis]

Originally Posted by fieldodreams79

^ Then let a bunch of V8 powered protos make a few more pit stops because of "crappy" fuel mileage and at the same time, they can make a great amount of fantastic noise, lay down loads of black marks on the pavement and smoke the tires under acceleration while putting on one helluva show.

I like high reving 8000+ RPM engine sound more, and for me first place is car/engine technology, then car design, and then teams/drivers.

[JHamilton]

Originally Posted by arakis

actually bigger engines means worse fuel milage, almost by deffiniton.

in a same car, same engine technologi a 2.5l engine would always have better fuel milaeg as a 5+l engine.

P.S. corvet has a much better drag coficient, and less frontal area then BMW witch reduces fuel milage alot

example bmw 528 6cyl, 2.8l auto. 32MPG highway
BMW 550 V8, 4.4l manual 22MPG highway

its quite easily explaind if you understand that for a economic run you dont need more then 100-150hp, and smaller engines are much more efficient at producing those numbers,

smaller displacement engine has less mass to move around(smaller cylinders), and a less frictional area(also smaller cylinders) so also it consumes less fuel for the same hp.

also low reving large cylindar engines (old school mucle cars) are nutorius for consuming huge amounts of fuel

That's not true as it depends on the situation. Let's say you have two equivalent boats - one with a 3L and the other with a 5L. Run one WOT across a lake or pull a skier all day and let me know which gets better mileage. Cruise at 25 mph all day and the story is different. The same is true with race engines... You have to spin a smaller engine at a higher rpm to produce the same power, therefore using more fuel. Different designs have different positive and negatives.

I don't drive a Vette, but have a car with a similar drag coeffiecient and weight to an E46 M3.

M3 - 3.2L, 333 hp/262lb/ft, 15 City/22 Hwy
LS2 - 6.0L, 400 hp/400lb/ft, 15 City/23 Hwy

Weird, eh? Now compare that to the 550i 4.4L, 360 hp/360 lb/ft, 15 City/22 Hwy, although admittedly a much larger car. There are gearing, tuning, drag, rolling resistance, etc. issues to point at, not just displacement.

Musclecars got crappy mileage as they were built 50 years ago, are carboreted, and ran on leaded fuel. The big block Chevelle that I grew up in the back seat of was way cooler than a 550i though.

[arakis]

I'll admit when I am beat, i read up on it, and it seems at WOT larger engiens are as effiecent, I think restrictor sive would mean alot to withc engine is more efficient, 4.5l 458 engine restricted to 450ho revs at only 6500 rpm, (unrestricted it run 9000 rpm)

so I guess a lot would depend where the restricted power figure is and what is the optimal engine size eficiently for that power figure. I am preaty sure if highest end technology was used that only one configuration / size would prove to be the mose efficient for a giver hp restriction

[alexkiller8]

i've read too some time ago on ultimatecarpage.com that the 458GTC engine reaches max power (465hp) on 6250RPM! but sincerly i have seriously doubts about this, a so decreased rev limit should have a lot of torque to (should be around 600Nm to make the engine competitive, but is written 520Nm there) but we can say a thing like this if we are talking about of a v8 american engine small black like the corvette 5.5L one (more than 700Nm at 4500, and max rev between 5500-6000RPM).... but the 458 italia engine (and all the ferrari's engine philosophy) is the exact opposite....

[arakis]

there is something odd about ferraris power spec, at 6250 rpm for an engine to produce 465hp it has to give ~530 NM of torque, witch would make it its maximum torque at maximum power witch I haven't seen in my life.(my life is short so this shouldnt be considered odd)

[Purist]

If Baltimore was any indication, it would seem that the F458 is down on torque compared to the other GT2 cars.

Historically, Ferraris have tended more toward favoring top-end power rather than bottom-end grunt. There certainly have been exceptions to this though, like the 860 Monza, 4-cylinder cars.

[gregtummer]

Regarding the WEC possibly stealing Sebring out from Don Panoz, is there a FIA maximum car amount for Sebring as there is for Petit Le Mans?

[Guardian]

Originally Posted by Purist

If Baltimore was any indication, it would seem that the F458 is down on torque compared to the other GT2 cars.

Not sure about that. The 458 seemed to have plenty of torque to me while I was at the race. It's problem was getting the power down. As I noted in the race thread, the 458 was breaking the back end loose coming out of just about every hard corner of the track, especially the hairpin. None of the other cars seemed to have the same traction problems.

[courageous]

quote from dailysportscar article

Frederic Henry-Bibaud, General Manager of the ILMC on Sebring

at Sebring this year we had a mixed (ILMC and ALMS) grid.
We expect that to continue next season but need to discuss with the ALMS how to achieve what is required for 2013 which is, of course, a dedicated WEC grid, with a bigger entry.

so there you go - unless they run 2 of them, 2012 will be the last time ALMS has the Sebring 12hr

[Fogelhund]

Originally Posted by courageous

quote from dailysportscar article

Frederic Henry-Bibaud, General Manager of the ILMC on Sebring


so there you go - unless they run 2 of them, 2012 will be the last time ALMS has the Sebring 12hr

Hopefully they tell Henry-Bibaud he can go ...... himself.

[alexkiller8]

if that specs are true about 458 GTC engine, how much power could reach that engine at 9000RPM? .-. something around 750hp i guess...

[broadrun96]

It did seem like the guys were ask talking about how BMW was launching the best due to their traction system, and we ask know how the 911s launch with the rear engine. Ferrari probably has the newest system and so least setup, and you could hear it some during the race. Will be interesting to listen to the Risi vs ESM cars at Laguna and PLM to see if the paddleshift gets a new TC update or if they both do, or is there no difference in the actual systems just the selector mechanism?