In the red corner, weighing in at 6.2 liters of displacement, we have GM’s new 6.2 liter V8 (L86). The naturally-breathing engine makes 420 horsepower and 450 lb-ft of torque in the all-new 2014 Silverado and 2014 Sierra, using the trusted small-block push-rod setup, but with a few modern technologies, including Variable Valve Timing, Cylinder Deactivation (or Active Fuel Management/AFM), and Direct Injection.
In the blue corner, weighing in at 3.6 liters of displacement, we have another new GM engine: a twin-turbocharged 3.6 liter V6 (LF3). The boosted six-banger also makes 420 horsepower, but 430 lb-ft of torque in the all-new 2014 Cadillac CTS. The engine is as power-dense as they get (116 horsepower per liter), representing the state-of-the art in powerplant engineering and design, through and through.
As you may have expected, both engines take entirely different approaches to optimizing the modern internal combustion engine, but put out the same amount of power and sport similar torque figures. As it stands, The General can pick and choose the best engine for the appropriate application — using the big and burly V8 for trucks, and the smaller, boosted six-pot for sports cars.
Feast your eyes on the similarities, and on the differences:
| METRIC | 6.2L V8 L86 | 3.6L V6 TT LF3 |
|---|---|---|
| TYPE | 6.2L V8 | 3.6L V6 TWIN TURBO |
| DISPLACEMENT | 6.2L | 3.6L |
| VALVETRAIN | OVERHEAD VALVE, TWO VALVES PER CYLINDER, VARIABLE VALVE TIMING | DUAL OVERHEAD CAM, FOUR VALVES PER CYLINDER, VARIABLE VALVE TIMING |
| FUEL DELIVERY | DIRECT HIGH-PRESSURE FUEL INJECTION | DIRECT HIGH-PRESSURE FUEL INJECTION |
| COMPRESSION RATIO | 11.5:1 | 9.5:1 |
| RECOMMENDED FUEL | REGULAR UNLEADED OR E85 | PREMIUM REQUIRED |
| MAXIMUM ENGINE SPEED | 6000 | 6500 |
| POWER HP / kW @ RPM | 420 / 313 @ 5600 | 420 / 313 @ 5750 |
| TORQUE LB-FT / Nm @ RPM | 450 / 610 @ 4100 | 430 / 583 @ 3500 – 4500 |
Comments
How about weight?
There are many other considerations not identified in the report. One is the shape of the engine torque curve. Turbocharged engines are sometimes a bit weak in the ultra-low RPM below, just for an example, 1500-2500 RPM. This is the tippy-toe throttle movement often used while cruising on the highway or tooling around town.
The V8 will never, never, have a turbocharger failure nor a turbocharger whine in its present form because it has no turbocharger.
The V8 does have cylinder cutout and only time will tell how imperceptible this remains over the engine’s lifetime.
V8 engines have smoother power delivery due to one third more frequent power impulses, which are also smaller power impulses for a given power output.
The V8 camshaft is hidden in the V valley where it is naturally sound damped by surrounding metal. On the DOHC V6, four cams with four chain driven sprockets require additional efforts to control sound. One will have to stand in front of the two engines with the hood up to gain some perspective on respective noise outputs.
General Motors has a phenomenal amount of experience with its small block V8 engine. The impact of this on life expectancy and reliability may give it the edge in long-term freedom from minor problems.
That said, the V8 engine as a type is nearing the end of its life span, even with the latest revision, and the V6 may have a long future, fuel prices permitting. Four cylinder engine design advances daily.
The V6 is said to require premium fuel. But many modern engines have automatic adaptation to incoming fuel octane, with a user choice of less power for lower octane. One wonders if that is true for the turbocharged V6, which puts greater demand on fuel quality.
Hey Alex, aren’t the fuel numbers similar as well?
It comes down to marketing.
This is a matter of catering to the whims of the market and giving them what they want where they want it.
While the cars will benefit with the Turbo I am not so sure the Trucks would have not also benefitied too. Ford has sold a hell of a lot of TT V6 trucks at a premium price. Just count the F150 trucks you pass that have the offset plates on them and you will see the Ecoboost is a very common engine in trucks.
Also the Turbo’s torque curve is much flatter and wider so it has a much more beefy feel low down.
Another interesting proposition to add to the comparison would be the 5.3L version running on E85.
Fuel-wise, it (typically) has a similar cost proposition as premium fuel (and perhaps a better value in certain parts of the country.)
Power-wise, it isn’t too far off (380 HP, 416 Lb/Ft.)
Overall, on E85, the new 5.3L could be seen as an interesting alternative with a solid value for the dollar. Just thinking…
These engines are steps in the right direction. Not like the also-ran V6 also available in the 2014 Silverado.
Dumbass! That “also ran Silverado” V6 has best in class torque, which is what truck buyers need. Next year when its mated to an 8 speed it will also have best in class fuel economy.
What is interesting about torque–peak twisting moment to engineers–is that its nature has evolved over time. Many years ago, peak torque came in at anything between about 1500 and 3000 RPM. The extreme among engines that I knew of was a 900 RPM peak torque figure for one of the earliest Chevrolet straight six engines. Now, things have changed. Peak torque often comes in at over four thousand RPM, which many drivers seldom reach in daily metropolitan driving.
The drive for fuel efficiency also means that most cars are being designed to run at lower engine speeds to conserve fuel, putting even greater emphasis on low-RPM power for routine driving.
Given the trend to higher and higher peak torque RPMs, that data point will sometimes come closer to predicting a typical driver’s perception of high speed engine power in daily drivingthan will the peak horsepower figures. It would be very nice if every new car came with a set of power curves for both horsepower and RPM. That, plus knowledge of one’s personal driving patterns would make user assessment of published engine power better informed.
don’t know about US fuel prices but here is aus the V6 TT will cost 60c per US gal more to feed using premium fuel, may end up being cheaper cents/mile to run the V8
I don’t know gentlemen. I’ve owned the 5.3l, which was in my 02 Silverado, and it took a beating. Cammed, tuned, and heads push 385 rwhp till it died @ 169k (naturally aspirated). That was a good engine. I could swap 6.0 parts on it. I would gave like to see the 5.3 step away from the cathedral ports.
I’m a little leery about the variable timed engines, just hope there aren’t as many recalls on the cam shaft sensors , like with the HHR SS . I can’t image what Cadillac customers would say. There aren’t many who like the 3.6, and I’m really pushing for a turnaround.
First off what killed your V8 so soon. That engine with oil changes should have out lasted the body. 169 is an early death?
Second nearly all engines including the the LS new LT V8 line have variable valve timing. The sensor is on the cam cover.
As or the HHR SS there have been no recalls or even odd issues with them. I have owned one since new and no had any issues with the engine and for a guy who hated 4 cylinders I have fallen in love with the engine.
Note too the price of fuel may be a non factor if the TT is used in other cars as most can be tuned to be Premium Fuel Recommended and not Required. The computer dials it back a bit and it is the owners choice for more power or a slight fuel savings. It cost about 25 HP. The 3800 SC GEN IV had this too.
The fact is in cars in the higher lines people like technology and they love their TT Audis and Benz and BMW’s. Too many fairly or not see the push rod V8 as a pick up truck engine even in the Corvette. GM is smart to offer both and fit each to the needs and expectations of those buying the product it is in.
The 3.6 is not hated and has been a very good engine. The TT should garner some awards next year.
My error, not a recall, but a tsb. Sorry. Even worse, we have added “go faster” parts, and now no dealership will touch it, and I get to do some of the work. Nice.
As for the 5.3l, lets just say… wrist rod punched out a hole in the oil pan.
I do not see a TSB for the SS on the system?
As for the go fast parts that is the price you pay to play. I work in the performance aftermarket and you can not blame GM for wanting to cover your modifications.
I have the GM tune and it has the 5 year 100K warranty in tact and near 300 HP.
The rod breaking is a rare thing even with the performance cars. Either you had one of those very rare failures or someone did something they should not have done.
I will have to dig it out… but there’s one as a concern.
The GM tune that you’re talking about, is that the stock tune? I know from the factory the our ’08 SS had 260hp, and maybe I was unaware of upping the Hp. 300 isn’t bad on plastic parts.
And as far as my truck, it wasn’t a stock performance truck. I made it that way. I’ve even swapped the trans, tossed in a converter, posi, and 4.10’s. Started out as LS 5.3l ECSB. Now it’s a LS2 block and LS6 heads.
I’m with Scott here:
1. Something weird must have done your 5.3L in… I have a friend who has 240,000 original miles on his — and it still runs just fine.
2. The 3.6L LFX is universally loved by nearly all who have it. It’s a great engine, and has the best balance of power and fuel efficiency compared to similarly-sized modern V6s industry-wide!
I didn’t have a stock 5.3L, added 224r cam with a 112lsa, upgraded the tune as well. I still believe it’s a great engine. Bolts-ons gave her 385 at the block. She was just tired…
Alex. where’s the HP/torque graph?
Good news – Both make great power!
Bad news – Neither is or likely will be available anytime soon in a vehicle with an MSRP less than $50K. The L86 6.2L V8 is
only available in ext. cab or crew cab SLT trim Sierras or LTZ trim Silverado’s. The 3.6L TT V6 will show up in the
new CTS, but look for a price closer to $65K for one equipped with this motor. ATS-V you say? $50K+ again.
Summary – GM is offering some great new engines and performance packages, but all seem to come with large price tags
these days? I guess this is new GM?
SIngle cab 6.2l would be nice.
Agree, It would be nice.
In my mind it’s all about choices. Full-size truck buyers like plenty of different options and choices. Part of this is so you can have truck that is just a bit different than your neighbor down the road. Part of it is so you can specify a vehicle that specifically meets your wants and needs. Whatever the case, buyers shouldn’t be forced to take the top trim levels to get the most powerful engine. Conversely you should be able to get the new 4.3L V6 as a delete/credit option on the SLT Sierra or LTZ Silverado, but can’t have that either.
My choice would be an LT(3.73 gears) single or ext cab, and choice of power plants and/or trans. Liking the idea of Ls2 with 80E and no torque management. Ok, sorry I got carried away.
There is one think that I loved when I did purchase my ’02 when it was a 5.3L, the rear DISC BRAKES. When will that option come to life again?
The 5th gen Camaro Is closer than you think.
But it is true the V8 prices will continue to grow to help limit sales naturally. It is the only way GM can do it and not kill the CAFE average or the need to eliminate the engine all together.
One is less expensive to manufacture!
The other carries an image of sophistication, something that would favourable in a CTS or high-end ATS.
Smart man!
The auto today is more than just how cheap we can build it. The fact is the LT is not a cheap motor to build anymore either. Too often people confuse the LS and LT with the old Gen one engine. Todays engines are not really small block Chevys in anything but name. They are true advanced high tech engines and to me the marketing them as a Small Block Chevy is a dis service to them. Other than a few shared measurements on bore spacing they are totally new engines.
Now even thought they are totally new engines and very high tech push rods are not see as such by many consumers. They like and think more valves and more boost are better. And in some ways it is . My 2.0 Turbo has 315 FT LBS at just under 2000 RPM to 5300 RPM. It is amazing and even faster than my stock BBC cars from the past.
Today technology has made it to where we can tailor things to customers wishes and automotive demands. The fact is there will be limits to the V8 MPG wise as we are nearing that wall unless they cut size.
But case in point the Eco boost F150 sells in nearly as great as numbers as the V8 anymore and it cost more. This is proof people like tech and things that are new. They are only gaining 1 MPG over the V8.
The money and the value are on the V8 but yet near half still choose the V6 TURBO.
Cadillac needs to tap into things that are not in Pick up Trucks and a Chevy to make inroads to set themselves apart. Odds are slim they will get an engine of their own but they can get their own tuning and engine models. I wish they would add more aluminum and stainless to the engines and dress them up vs. the plastic cover but I know they also use it as a sound barrier.
It is more than about numbers on paper here and you have to factor in what triggers things with todays buyers.
Even with the new 4.3 while it is a good engine it just does not trigger much excitement as it appears too much like the old engine. I wish they had at least changed the displacement.
The other factor with Turbo engines is most are easy to gain 50-60 HP with nothing more than toe MAP sensors and a flash. I went from 235 HP in first and second gears to 290 HP and in 3rd and 4th we went from 250 to 290 HP with 315 FT LBS from 250 LBS. The Solstice with a 5 speed gets 340 FT LBS.
Anyways Grawdaddy you are one of the few that see the big picture that is often missed. Keep up the open mind and that kind of thinking! Thumbs up to you.
Thanks Scott.
Whenever I think of the future of Cadillac, I think of what they were circa late 90’s. I usually shutter, and think “how would I distance Cadillac of 2013 from Cadillac of 1997”? It works pretty much every time and for the most part, Cadillac of 2013 is where it should be going.
It will be a struggle for Cadillac in the years to come, no question, and a lot of the struggle in selling luxury goods is in perception. In this case I would never want to see the L86 in an ATS or CTS because of the negative perception that it would create in the eyes of luxury buyers. Pushrods, no matter how robust and technologically advanced, aren’t seen as such. Cadillac might get away with this in the V models, but I wouldn’t rule out a hi-po TT3.6 finding it’s way into an ATS-V. The V-series buyer of tomorrow might shun pushrods for turbo’s, and for Cadillac’s sake, it would be a travesty if those buyers were to be ignored.
That’s why the LF3 exists. Yes, the L86 and it have overlap, and yes the L86 is cheaper to make and many flavours of the GenV will find their way into the K2XX variants, thereby making the L86 even cheaper to make. But the LF3 has to do something that the L86 doesn’t have to do.
The LF3 also has to pull a bigger load than what the GenV’s could ever pull…
…Cadillac’s global image.
Had there been one available with more than the six-speed CTX-V, I would have bought the Cadillac instead of the V8 car that I have ordered. A big, relatively slow turning, pushrod V8 is very compatible with a luxury car. We still have our old 1990 Cadillac. It is surprising that a car that old still has a quieter engine than our 2010 Subaru.
I am very interested in reviews of the new 4.3 V6 engine. In its previous, cast iron, form, it was often criticized for vibration and coarseness even with the single balance shaft. Similar 90-degree V6 engines from German car and truck makers were not similarly criticized. Now I wonder if GM has managed to increase its V^ smoothness factor by its new design.
Pushrods are fine for trucks. And speaking of trucks, there has not been any information on Gen. V. variations for the 2015 Silverado/Sierra HD models. Rather doubt the aluminum block L86 would be used in these models. There was talk of a 7.0L truck engine at one time, but an engine that large may not be needed with direct injection.
LSX or LSA possibly?
Aluminum is fine for truck engine blocks as well as for cars. Recall the giant aluminum engines that powered WWII aircraft, the aluminum diesels used in some submarines, and the old aluminum blocks that were used in some General Motors/Detroit Diesel two cycle engines. Sufficient block strength is an engineering challenge that can be met.
V8 takes regular unleaded?! Amazing!
This is what I want…the new Camaro RS V6 making 350HP in a ATS platform (but with better rear seats) RWD performance sadan starting at 25K. It could get over 30mpg highway and with 350HP it would be fast if it weighs in around 3400.
Name me a RWD/AWD performance sadan under 30K? The WRX….that’s about it and that’s a sad truth! Apparently only the rich guys have kids and like performence.
Hi, i read your blog occasionally and i own a similar one and i was just curious if you
get a lot of spam feedback? If so how do you prevent it, any plugin or anything you can recommend?
I get so much lately it’s driving me crazy so any help is very much appreciated.
Here is my blog post … best Probiotic Supplements
Way cool! Some very valid points! I appreciate you writing this post and also the rest of the site is really
good.
This is the right website for anybody who really wants to find out
about this topic. You know a whole lot its almost tough to argue with you (not that I actually
would want to…HaHa). You definitely put a fresh spin on a subject which has been
discussed for a long time. Great stuff, just
excellent!
SPAM
nothing you have said is true……………..the ford ecoboost with a 3.5L twin turbo makes 500 ft lbs of torque at 2500 rpm with just a tune and exhaust. turbo charger failure is a non issue they last hundreds of thousands of miles if taken care of properly look at all the semi trucks which go half a million miles. they will need rebuilt about as often as the engine. metal isnt a sound dampener it travels through metal and often magnify’s it, not all dohc are chain driven many are belt driven vs the v8 will always be chain driven, the noise generated is the same the thing that affects it isnt in block vs over head cam its solid vs hydraulic lash adjustment ive built enough engines and heard them run i can say that with 100% confidence(especially since you have rockers making noise in a in block engine). next a engine is a engine, be is a v6 or a v8 there isnt any magic in them you apply the same concepts from one to the other and it operates exactly the same, gm has alot of experience with forced induction between diesels, superchargers(on all kinds of stuff) and turbos(both 4 cylinders and 6’s)
the v8 will never die there will always be a demand for it from performance enthusiasts so it will always exist. the advances on 4 cylinders are being applied on everything that includes v8’s the 4 cylinders come from the factory damn near maxing power, vs the v8’s with tons of potential left only being held back to easily pass emissions and fuel requirements.
the last part is the biggest pile of crap ive ever heard, there isnt a sensor on this planet which will tell you the octane of your fuel. the only sensors they have are ethanol sensors which dont measure octane but measure ethanol content. it is known that 93 contains 10% ethanol and it is known true e85 is 114 octane those octanes are hard coded in and it extrapolates for ethanol content not octane rating. 97, 89, 91,92,93, and 94 all have the same 10% ethanol and thus absolutely no way for a computer to differentiate. what the computer CAN do is sense knock, as in when the engine is detonating and damaging itself. when it does that it pulls spark a large amount of timing, then after so many engine cycles of no knock it begins to add it back in again, then pulls spark when it knocks again. its a rapid cycle that constantly happens and constantly destroys the engine leading to spun bearings and broken ring lands requiring complete engine overhaul and machine work.
just another example of someone spewing crap up without knowing a thing about how cars actually work
A little late but the GM tune he was talking about was from the GM Performance Parts Stage 1 LNF kit, which added 3 bar TMAP sensors and a new tune while keeping your factory warranty. It put the Cobalt SS at 280HP/320TQ, the HHR SS at 290/315, and the Solstice/Sky at 290/340 (290/325 for auto trans).
Guy’s exactly right… LF3 may produce “peak” torque from 3500 rpm to 4500 rpm, but turbocharged engines tend to be “peaky”… The flatter the curve, for trucking, the better… The LF3 would be good if you stayed above 3500 rpm all the time, such as performance driving… The 6.2 probably has a 50-100 lb/ft torque advantage in the low rpm range, say 1500-2000 rpms, good for towing and crawling up hills.
@G no offense but you should actually look at the dynos of these engines a 2.0L I4 might be peaky but thats about it. if you actually look at these modern 3.0+ turbo engines they produce more torque at a lower rpm then their v8 counterparts. go take a look at the ford f150 as a perfect example, more power, more torque, and a wider power band then the 5.0 coyote, and the previous gen 5.4L they had to come out with a new 6.2L just to beat the turbo 3.5L in power(365 turbo 6 vs 411 6.2L) but the turbo 6 makes it lower. not only that compare ford 6.2L to the turbo 6 in torque the v8 dosnt make its peak 434 lb ft till 4500 rpm but the turbo engine makes its 420 lb ft at 2500 rpm. the advancements that borg warner and precision have made to turbos in the last 10 years has been phenomenal when combined with a 3.5Lish engine which is why all these turbo engines are coming in around there. why are they able to do this? there is only so much you can do to a NA engine to improve airflow, the engines are pretty much at the limit of VE and can only improve through rpm, so the v8’s are right shifting power bands with more aggressive cams. vs the turbo engines only too to bump up boost and can still use the smaller cams and make the same power. allowing the power band to be leftshifted and even further help turbo spool. we are at a point that until some major advancements are made turbos are the way to go, as centrifugal superchargers have more lag and a roots style, even a eaton tvs, or a whipple only has a real advantage over a properly designed turbo setup under 1500 rpms. which almost no car can use other then cruising due to gearing. heck my turbo 3.5L makes 600 whp at 5200 rpm and 600 lb ft at 4800 rpm, and makes 90% power over 2200 rpms. thats significantly more power at a lower rpm then the corvette zr1 with a 700 rpm wider power band.
the whole “a v8 has a better power band!” is far outdated at this point, the aftermarket has been proving it wrong for years now and the OEMS are starting to catch on and do it also.
also the entire concept of engine torque being better is 100% useless, engine torque is a useless figure because it dosnt factor in gearing, which can easily make torque the same. 200 btq with a 4:1 gearing makes 800 wtq the same as 400 btq with 2:1 gearing. not only that torque is literally nothing more then a instant power figure for potential work. horsepower is what actually matters because that is work being done. despite the HORRIBLY incorrect myth that horsepower is just calculated it is in fact not. it is a measurement on work being done, the formula is 1 hp is the force needed to move 550 lbs 1 foot in 1 second.(in fact ALL inertial dynos measure horsepower and actually calculate torque the opposite of what people think.)
I note that most small engine makers–Briggs&Stratton, Kohler, etc. have now gone to primary reliance on torque data in their engine advertisements. You are correct that perceived engine power reflects multiple considerations. Top-gear ratios in particular have been trending numerically lower. My present car runs at less than 1500 RPM at 60 miles per hour. I consider torque and horsepower to have a determinate and fixed relationship at any given RPM.
most small engines also have a fixed gear ratio unlike cars, so it can be used without the information being misleading. if you have a car doing 1500 at 60 mph you likely have a CVT transmission since most traditional do not, i have not been in a new car in the past 5 years that did other then those with CVT.
torque and horsepower do have a relationship at a given rpm however the torque will change depending on gear selected horsepower however does not since the gear ratio which multiplies torque drops rpm to maintain the same horsepower. which is why for a automobile considering torque without knowing vehicle weight or gear ratio is futile and worthless. horsepower however eliminates the need to know the gear ratio to get an accurate representation of what the vehicle is capable of.
The car does not have a CVT, it does have a seven speed automatic and a V8 engine.
If the torque of an engine changes due to an RPM difference caused by the RPM it is operating at for a given road speed, then the horsepower will also, and always in a fixed mathematical relationship. Horsepower to torque conversion can be computed from the Horsepower to Torque Formula wherein Torque in Foot-Pounds equals Horsepower times 33,000 divided by two pi times RPM. Equivalent formulas exist for metric figures, and for converting from a known torque figure to horsepower.
As you indicate, if one changes gear ratios, then at a given road speed the maximum potential developed engine torque will also change, along with the corresponding horsepower because the engine will be operating at a different point on its power curve. I refer to potential power here. The actual throttle opening and hence developed horsepower and torque will vary according to such operating conditions as wind resistance, road slope, etc.
sorry bro your absolutely fucking wrong, no idea where you are getting your information from but you need to punch them in the face that isnt the formula and you should go to school for it(like i did) and build some cars before you try arguing with someone who has 12 years experience in the field. the proper formula for determining torque from hp and rpm is tq=(hp*5252)/rpm and the formula for horsepower is hp=(tq*rpm)/5252 you attempting to make some long winded crap so you appear knowledgeable. learn how gears work, torque is multiplied by gear ratio, that same multiplication of torque causes a reduction in rpm. result is horsepower remains largely unchanged minus a small % from parasitic losses that has nothing to do with changing the gear or rpm. the funny thing is your own formula also supports what i say.
as for your second point please do tell how a engine running at 5000 rpm with a 4:1 gear ratio is running at a different point in its power band then one running 5000 rpm with a 2:1 gear ratio. go ahead ill wait because i know for a fact they are operating in the EXACT same point in their power band both at 5000 rpm, and considering dynos are done at WOT you have made yourself look like a idiot because throttle wont change either. good job looking like a ignorant tool though despite attempting to over complicate shit you dont understand.
good effort at trying to cloud the subject though by over complicating things by bringing things into the conversation that have nothing to do with it such as throttle angle, gear changes causing drops in rpm, road conditions………….. because that has absolutely zero to do with the conversation since the topic was HORSEPOWER dosnt change based on gear ratios, which it dosnt, gear change dropping rpm? its dropping because of the engine rpm dropping dyno that same rpm in a different gear and it will still be the same horsepower, thats how gears work basic physics here. throttle change? ummmm no shit the horsepower isnt dropping from gearing its dropping from a restriction in the intake, torque is dropping also. again dyno with the same throttle percentage in a different gear and again horsepower will still remain the same. i could literally do that with every point you bring up because what you are doing is called a red herring fallacy, you attempt to distract from the main topic by bringing other topics into the subject. obviously you have never had a car on the dyno before vs the hundreds i have.
its also very amusing you mention where your vehicle operates yet then simply state its a “v8 with 7 speed automatic” with no mention of what vehicle it is. probably best you dont though because i know theres only a couple vehicles with 7 speed automatics and v8’s more then likely you dont have either and it would hurt your credibility if you mentioned what you have.
Your formula works just fine and if you like it, you should stay with it. It is only one of several mathematical expressions in which the torque and horsepower relationship can be expressed to arrive at the same results.
The car in question is a 2014 Mercedes-Benz E550 4Matic four door sedan in Diamond White. It has a 4.6 liter (4663 cc to be exact) V8 with twin turbochargers. I purchased the car in large part because of the excellent torque curve of this engine. Other cars with comparably strong engines include the V8 BMW 550, the Jaguars with supercharged V8’s, the Porsche Panamera with V8, the Audi turbocharged V8s, etc. Quite a few, actually.
You are right: I may have overcomplicated the issue. It is a hazard of discussing technical matters where many things interrelate. I don’t operate dynos, and am undoubtedly not conversant with the customary language of the dyno operator.
sorry but thats exactly what i thought, out of the cars you listed not a single one is a automatic transmission, in fact porsche dosnt even produce a automatic transmission of any gear. every one of them use a DCT or dual clutch transmission. it is in fact two manual transmissions in one using independent clutchs for two input shafts that run one inside the other. they do not share a single part with a automatic nor function in anyway shape or form even close to how an automatic functions.
Wow. You are a dick. Not only have you been wrong in some of your other posts, but you were wrong here with your attack on the parent poster. He was right. Period. You clearly a.) have zero knowledge of the genesis of the “horsepower” and b.) you are obviously terrible at math which leads me to the conclusion c.) that you are full of shit and do not have 12 years of experience “in the field” (unless you are a janitor at a car manufacturing facility and are thus embellishing “your experience”).
Go ahead and and do the math. What is 33k/2pi? Exactly. Also he pointed out that if you change gearing that the power produced by the engine for a given road speed would be different BECAUSE the engine is operating at a different point in its power band. You then somehow attempted to make a convoluted argument about the same engine running at 5k rpms? What? The parent is not the ass attempting to make himself sound more knowledgeable. You are. As to your advice about the parent punching someone in the face. I would offer the same advice to you, but would suggest shooting instead of punching, and the person you should direct that at is yourself.
You are a joke. Go away.
holy fallacys batman! actually he was wrong period and you should learn how a car works, mayby some time after you finish high school. 1) my definition of a horsepower is exactly correct next time you want to disagree with someone might wanna check facts first from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/horsepower
horsepower (ˈhɔːsˌpaʊə)
n
1. (Units) an fps unit of power, equal to 550 foot-pounds per second (equivalent to 745.7 watts)
2. (Units) a US standard unit of power, equal to 746 watts
Abbreviation: HP or h.p
oh look i was right the force needed to move 550 lbs 1 foot in one second imagine that.
2) for complaining that I dont know math you seem to lack the ability to understand how gears work or how speed is even achieved. road speed is 100% a function of tire diameter and rotations. of course you dont even understand what the arguement even was which was that horsepower is not affected by gearing. which its not the only one who is a joke is you. your argument is for x road speed power will be different because its at a different rpm point. hey news flash your comparing apples to oranges try comparing the same thing which is what makes my point 100% accurate and you look like a 12 year old angry at the keyboard. your saying that because the engine drops x rpm(lets say 1500 rpm thats a normal 1-2 shift) the power is different because you changed gears and the road speed is different(news flash its not you have to accelerate again first) well guess what not changing gears and just letting the rpm drop without it does the same thing, the engine will make the same horsepower regardless of gearing at x rpm. essentially your entire argument agrees with me in a fucked up convoluted way because that engine in that different gear will make the same power as that engine at that rpm in a different gear which is 100% the conversation.
come back when you can, you know drive, or have ever even been to a dyno since its obvious you havnt been to one, or fuck graduated high school even.
Jerry you imbecile re-read what I wrote. You do not understand math and you do not understand what the parent poster wrote. He was write on EVERY SINGLE point I brought to your attention. You said he was wrong. You were wrong. Give it up. You are not an authority. You are VERY far from an authority. You can resort to ad hominem argumentation when you are proven wrong (which I did) but it just makes you look like more of an imbecile than you already are. Leave this website. Do not come back. Nobody wants people like you here.
You are still a joke.
I don’t want to discuss power curves, gear ratios, and developed power any more. The topics are well presented in several auto technology textbooks. I do want to point out that the car brands I named, in total, offer variety of transmission choices. Automatic transmissions are among the them.
your back? sorry but no i already presented you that information, hell porsche hasnt made a automatic transmission in years. a dual clutch manual isnt a automatic just because it dosnt have a clutch pedal its nothing like a automatic, they dont share a single part in common, the only people who try to argue that are those who dont actually even know what a dual clutch manual is which is what the vehicles you presented use.
Jerryd87, I will quote accurately rather than paraphrase. I had said that “My present car runs at less than 1500 RPM at 60 miles per hour.” I thought it would be an inoffensive and uncontroversial statement of fact,
You replied by this: “if you have a car doing 1500 at 60 mph you likely have a CVT transmission since most traditional do not, i have not been in a new car in the past 5 years that did other then those with CVT.”
I responded that “The car does not have a CVT, it does have a seven speed automatic and a V8 engine.”
Your reply, in pertinent part was that “i know theres only a couple vehicles with 7 speed automatics and v8′s more then likely you dont have either and it would hurt your credibility if you mentioned what you have.”
I then provided you identifying information on my car so that you could access relevant technical information online to verify, or refute, my statement that the car had a V8 and automatic transmission, and said that “Other cars with comparably strong engines include the V8 BMW 550, the Jaguars with supercharged V8′s, the Porsche Panamera with V8, the Audi turbocharged V8s, etc.”
You then stated “out of the cars you listed not a single one is a automatic transmission, in fact porsche dosnt even produce a automatic transmission of any gear. every one of them use a DCT or dual clutch transmission.”
I now provide additional information to support my statements, with links to online documentation that you can read directly.
Reference my claim that BMW has an available 8 speed automatic transmission behind a turbocharged V8 engine: 8-speed automatic transmission, I provide this BMW quote:
“The 8-speed automatic transmission makes changing gears and driving significantly more convenient, thanks to fast engine speed transitions and shorter shift times. It unites outstanding comfort with palpable dynamics and increased fuel-efficiency. Gears can also be changed manually using the selector lever.” The 550i has BMW’s turbocharged V8 engine. “http://www.bmw.com/com/en/newvehicles/5series/touring/2013/showroom/driving_dynamic/8_speed_automatic_transmission.html
Also, here: http://www.bmwusa.com/Standard/Content/Vehicles/2014/5/550iSedan/Features_and_Specs/Default.aspx?from=/Standard/Content/Vehicles/2014/5/550iSedan/Features_and_Specs.aspx&return=/Standard/Content/Vehicles/2014/5/550iSedan/Features_and_Specs.aspx
Reference my claim that Jaguar has a supercharged V8 engine with an eight speed automatic transmission: “US model includes V8 supercharged 510 PS, eight-speed automatic transmission, and went on sale in late 2012 as 2013 model year vehicle.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_XJ_%28X351%29
With regard to my claim that Porsche has a V8 engine with an eight speed automatic transmission: “The Cayenne Turbo is powered by a 4.8-liter twin-turbo V8 engine featuring direct fuel injection (DFI), VarioCam Plus and charge-air cooling. It generates 500 hp at 6,000 rpm. Maximum torque of 516 lb.-ft. is available between 2,250 and 4,500 rpm. Maximum speed is 172 mph, while the sprint from 0 to 60 mph takes as little as 4.2 seconds. By introducing a range of measures, e.g. standard fitment of the eight-speed Tiptronic S, we have been able to make the car 23% more fuel efficient.” http://www.porsche.com/usa/models/cayenne/ The Panamera, contrary to my statement, does have the PDK transmission. It is the Porsche Cayenne that has the available Turbo V8 and eight speed automatic transmission.
With regard to my claim that Audi has a turbocharged V8 engine with an eight speed automatic transmission: From AudiUSA.com website: (A8 model) “Trim & Engine 4.0 TFSI® .… Eight-speed Tiptronic® transmission Audi quattro® all-wheel drive.” http://www.audiusa.com/models/audi-a8/configurator#50710-4H25CA_U_1-2013/H4sIAAAAAAAAAPN1CtN1tNA1MjA0rjE1MDc00DXxMDJ1dowPjTeEiLqZmimAgFuUsrmHo65blK6fqatuoJGXspuhiUKAaYBpTU0NAPGjdFpHAAAA (sorry for the long identifier, it is on the Audi website).
I can provide additional supporting references on each of these cars, but many additional references are easily available on the internet in a variety of locations.
I personally would prefer the 6.2L V8, even in the CTS Vsport and ATS-V
Great post. I used to be checking continuously this blog and I’m inspired!
Extremely helpful information specially the last phase 🙂 I deal with such information a lot.
I used to be looking for this certain information for a long time.
Thank you and good luck.