6.0L v8 or 6.0L v12?
It seems to me that the engine with fewer cylinders would have an advantage in terms of friction with the air in the ports, and with valves, as well as internal friction. Also seems like it should be lighter overall, yet most race engines and high performance engines seem to favor more cylinders. v10 or v12.
//
I thought one larger valve would move more air more efficently than 2 or 4 smaller ones?
Very few factory V8 turn 8500 RPMs if any. The BMW M5/M6 V10 revs to 8500 this year and is going to 11,500 next year. The whole valve train weight less than 5 lbs. The is the same design the the F1 car runs and turns to 20,000. The more cylinders the more RPMs, due to less rotating mass.
Trending Topics
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
More cylinders == more combustion strokes on a revolution
Normally means more power for a given displacement.
This would be true for a given "cylinder" displacement.
But not true for a given "engine" displacement.
.75 liters * 8 cylinders = 6.0 liters
and
.60 liters * 10 cylinders = 6.0 liters
In this case all we did was spread the same 6 liters over more cylinders. We still get 6 liters worth of combustion per revolution.
The gain is in being able to rev higher (since each piston/rod assembly is sized smaller).
A V12 of 6.0L with a given valvetrain architecture SHOULD be longer than a V8 of 6.0L or given valvetrain architecture.
Revving higher is more a result of lighter valvetrain architecture required for each cyllinder.
A V12 of 6.0L with a given valvetrain architecture SHOULD be longer than a V8 of 6.0L or given valvetrain architecture.
Revving higher is more a result of lighter valvetrain architecture required for each cyllinder.
I just wanted to make the point (because some other people jumped on the more "strokes" wagon too) that increasing the number of strokes in itself doesn't get more power out of the engine -- because the individual cylinder displacements are reduced.
Yes I agree, valvetrain size (mass) comes down with the downsizing in bottom end parts too. We definitely need the valvetrain to continue to reciprocate, as well as needing the bottom end to survive the tendency for its parts to disassociate from each other at those higher piston speeds.
Engine dimensions mattered, because it determined where the engine can fit.
Just like you are not going to be able to use a turbo charger thats 6 ft tall.
Or if an engine was 5.0L of cyllinder displacement but had the external dimension of a 4 foot x 4 foot x 4 foot box, your not going to be able to install it anywhere.
A V12 should be much longer than the similar displacing V8, and that enhanced revving is more about the smaller and lighter valve train and not the smaller lighter piston/rod.
The V12 argument has come up, and the two reasons for increased power were:
lighter and higher revving individual cyllinders
increased combustion strokes on a revolution
v12 also reduced vibration
More cylinders == more combustion strokes on a revolution
Normally means more power for a given displacement.
But not true for a given "engine" displacement.
.75 liters * 8 cylinders = 6.0 liters
and
.60 liters * 10 cylinders = 6.0 liters
In this case all we did was spread the same 6 liters over more cylinders. We still get 6 liters worth of combustion per revolution.
Engine dimensions mattered, because it determined where the engine can fit.
Just like you are not going to be able to use a turbo charger thats 6 ft tall.
Or if an engine was 5.0L of cyllinder displacement but had the external dimension of a 4 foot x 4 foot x 4 foot box, your not going to be able to install it anywhere.
A V12 should be much longer than the similar displacing V8, and that enhanced revving is more about the smaller and lighter valve train and not the smaller lighter piston/rod.
The V12 argument has come up, and the two reasons for increased power were:
lighter and higher revving individual cyllinders
increased combustion strokes on a revolution
v12 also reduced vibration
The main reason to go with the V12 is the ability to rev higher and therefore make more power.
Assuming that the V12 has a 60 degree bank angle, and the V8 is a 90 degree with a dual plane crank, then the V12 will not have less vibration. Primary and secondary vibrations cancel themselves out on both engines. Neither requires counterbalancers.
From an all out racing standpoint, there are some drawbacks to the V12. While power may be greater, the 60 degree bank angle means that cg is higher than with a V8. The V12 will be heavier and longer. The powerband will be "peakier" and slightly more difficult to drive than the V8. Everything must be balanced against the higher power.
Al
the crankshaft is not allowed to slow down and wait for the next combustion to occur, rotation wise.
Pretty sure the crank is not slowing appreciably between firing strokes, especially at high rpms, in either case. Considering that a v8 intake valve is opening and closing about 50 times per second already, at 6k rpms.
Pretty sure the crank is not slowing appreciably between firing strokes, especially at high rpms, in either case. Considering that a v8 intake valve is opening and closing about 50 times per second already, at 6k rpms.

Given that friction is at play here, the crankshaft (actually rotating assembly) is always slowing after the max cylinder pressure has been achieved, after a complete burn cycle. More cylinders will always result in more torque per revolution, given a specific bore and stroke size.


Yes, the crank will slow down more in the V8 between firings. The difference between max and min angular velocity at a given rpm will be greater in the V8. Torsional vibration may be higher in the V8 as a result.
Al

I think the I4 version (literally a chopped in half 350 SBC) was a 2.9L. But we are digressing from displacement to cylinder volume.
Last edited by 12secSS; Dec 20, 2006 at 04:18 PM.







