drive your "44/68" one BILLION miles — Motor Oil Official Thread....
10-13-2010, 10:59 AM
#31
Team Owner
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: one thousand, five hundred miles north of Ft. Lauderdale for the summer.
Posts: 28,705
Received 213 Likes
on
153 Posts
here's an other opinion about the V8 and other engine designs...
V8′s Rule!
By Bob Elton on July 25, 2006
All cars should have a V8...
For one thing, the modern eight cylinder engine is inherently balanced; it has completely overlapping power impulses. In other words, one cylinder fires before the previous cylinder has finished contributing, creating a much smoother power delivery with fewer impulses. That’s why a V8 can use the same drivetrain components as a much smaller four cylinder engine with half the displacement. There is no need for secondary balance shafts, and no unpleasant vibrations to annoy the passengers and reduce the life of the exhaust system and other accessories. It’s the smoothest engine configuration money can buy.
In contrast, inline four cylinder engines are inherently unbalanced. Because of the geometry of the crankshaft and rods within the engine, fours shake in both the horizontal and vertical planes. There’s only one way to mitigate the effect: add unbalanced shafts to create counter-vibrations. This “fix” adds weight, complexity and cost. Even so, the inherent vibrations from a four cylinder engine wreak havoc on accessories and require extra mass in all the mounting brackets and related parts. In fact, by the time a four cylinder engine is tamed, it weighs and costs almost as much as a V8. And the customer still suffers the noise and vibration penalties that come from skimping on cylinders.
V6’s also have inherent imbalances, though not nearly as severe as a four. Depending on the block angle, V6 engine operation creates vertical or horizontal forces. The most sophisticated V6 engines also have balance shafts, again adding to complexity, cost and weight. Fives, threes and twos have even worse vibrations, some beyond simple analysis. V10’s add the vibrations of two five cylinder engines together, which is better at some speeds, worse at others. Turbocharging or supercharging four or six cylinder engines to get to V8 power levels simply adds more complexity and weight to an already challenged engine design, and sacrifices the low end torque of a naturally aspirated powerplant. (Just ask Mercedes’ AMG division, who’ve recently switched from supercharged eights and sixes normally aspirated 6.3-liter V8's.)
Odd numbers of cylinders, like three or five, are inevitably the result of cost-cutting. Sometimes there’s no time or money to tool for a smaller engine, so a few cylinders are lopped off an existing engine. That’s why GM’s lackluster small pickup trucks and the Hummer H3 sport a five cylinder engine. Ten cylinder engines, currently deployed in Vipers and some Dodge and Ford trucks, are another cost-cutting move. Engine not powerful enough? Add two more similar cylinders and call it good.
The provision of V12 engines in luxury cars is even more perverse. V12’s are no smoother than a V8 and add (you guessed it) weight, complication and cost. While that may be the manufacturer’s intent, it still makes little engineering sense. Jaguar gave up on V12’s a while ago. Aston Martin passed on their V12 to offer a V8 in their latest car. In fact, thanks to the V8’s relatively light weight, good power output and compact packaging, the engine configuration is, belatedly, making gains in the European market. BMW, Mercedes, Volvo and Audi all offer Euro-spec V8 passenger cars.
Once you’ve committed to a V8, there are a lot of reasons for making it a pushrod. A single camshaft simplifies a lot of things, and the narrow heads associated with pushrod engines allow greater flexibility in vehicle packaging. Thus smaller cars can enjoy a V8 engine. Before the outraged techno-comments start dropping at the feet of this post, it should be noted that the most powerful racing engines in the world are pushrod V8s, with two valve heads to boot. Some of the fastest cars you can buy in America have pushrod, two valve V8’s. The Chevrolet Corvette is only the most prominent example.
So why don’t all cars have V8’s? The answer lies in marketing, rather than engineering. Marketing has declared that V8 engines are best suited to high-end, high performance cars, while the masses should get by with “economical” fours and sixes. The public now believes that V8 means bad mileage. The opposite is true– at least potentially.
Mileage depends on several factors: the weight of the car, drive ratios, and how fast you go. Engine size and cylinder count have little to do with it. Of course, bigger engines encourage people to accelerate and drive faster, but that’s not the engine’s fault. And new technology is mooting the V8 as gas-guzzler argument. Multi-displacement systems (a fancy way of saying that four cylinders go on vacation when not needed) have the potential to dramatically increase V8 mileage under light load conditions.
In short, for pistonheads at least, the five saddest words in the English language are still “I could’ve had a V8”.
V8′s Rule!
By Bob Elton on July 25, 2006
All cars should have a V8...
For one thing, the modern eight cylinder engine is inherently balanced; it has completely overlapping power impulses. In other words, one cylinder fires before the previous cylinder has finished contributing, creating a much smoother power delivery with fewer impulses. That’s why a V8 can use the same drivetrain components as a much smaller four cylinder engine with half the displacement. There is no need for secondary balance shafts, and no unpleasant vibrations to annoy the passengers and reduce the life of the exhaust system and other accessories. It’s the smoothest engine configuration money can buy.
In contrast, inline four cylinder engines are inherently unbalanced. Because of the geometry of the crankshaft and rods within the engine, fours shake in both the horizontal and vertical planes. There’s only one way to mitigate the effect: add unbalanced shafts to create counter-vibrations. This “fix” adds weight, complexity and cost. Even so, the inherent vibrations from a four cylinder engine wreak havoc on accessories and require extra mass in all the mounting brackets and related parts. In fact, by the time a four cylinder engine is tamed, it weighs and costs almost as much as a V8. And the customer still suffers the noise and vibration penalties that come from skimping on cylinders.
V6’s also have inherent imbalances, though not nearly as severe as a four. Depending on the block angle, V6 engine operation creates vertical or horizontal forces. The most sophisticated V6 engines also have balance shafts, again adding to complexity, cost and weight. Fives, threes and twos have even worse vibrations, some beyond simple analysis. V10’s add the vibrations of two five cylinder engines together, which is better at some speeds, worse at others. Turbocharging or supercharging four or six cylinder engines to get to V8 power levels simply adds more complexity and weight to an already challenged engine design, and sacrifices the low end torque of a naturally aspirated powerplant. (Just ask Mercedes’ AMG division, who’ve recently switched from supercharged eights and sixes normally aspirated 6.3-liter V8's.)
Odd numbers of cylinders, like three or five, are inevitably the result of cost-cutting. Sometimes there’s no time or money to tool for a smaller engine, so a few cylinders are lopped off an existing engine. That’s why GM’s lackluster small pickup trucks and the Hummer H3 sport a five cylinder engine. Ten cylinder engines, currently deployed in Vipers and some Dodge and Ford trucks, are another cost-cutting move. Engine not powerful enough? Add two more similar cylinders and call it good.
The provision of V12 engines in luxury cars is even more perverse. V12’s are no smoother than a V8 and add (you guessed it) weight, complication and cost. While that may be the manufacturer’s intent, it still makes little engineering sense. Jaguar gave up on V12’s a while ago. Aston Martin passed on their V12 to offer a V8 in their latest car. In fact, thanks to the V8’s relatively light weight, good power output and compact packaging, the engine configuration is, belatedly, making gains in the European market. BMW, Mercedes, Volvo and Audi all offer Euro-spec V8 passenger cars.
Once you’ve committed to a V8, there are a lot of reasons for making it a pushrod. A single camshaft simplifies a lot of things, and the narrow heads associated with pushrod engines allow greater flexibility in vehicle packaging. Thus smaller cars can enjoy a V8 engine. Before the outraged techno-comments start dropping at the feet of this post, it should be noted that the most powerful racing engines in the world are pushrod V8s, with two valve heads to boot. Some of the fastest cars you can buy in America have pushrod, two valve V8’s. The Chevrolet Corvette is only the most prominent example.
So why don’t all cars have V8’s? The answer lies in marketing, rather than engineering. Marketing has declared that V8 engines are best suited to high-end, high performance cars, while the masses should get by with “economical” fours and sixes. The public now believes that V8 means bad mileage. The opposite is true– at least potentially.
Mileage depends on several factors: the weight of the car, drive ratios, and how fast you go. Engine size and cylinder count have little to do with it. Of course, bigger engines encourage people to accelerate and drive faster, but that’s not the engine’s fault. And new technology is mooting the V8 as gas-guzzler argument. Multi-displacement systems (a fancy way of saying that four cylinders go on vacation when not needed) have the potential to dramatically increase V8 mileage under light load conditions.
In short, for pistonheads at least, the five saddest words in the English language are still “I could’ve had a V8”.
10-13-2010, 05:01 PM
#35
Race Director
10-13-2010, 05:59 PM
#38
Advanced
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The qoute about V8 engines is just silly, whoever wrote it is clearly a chevy fanboy. I agree that 4 cylinders are a compromise, but whoever wrote that fails to comprehend that all motors are a compromise. He's wrong so many times it's not funny. First, the V8 is smoother because it has more impulses. The more primary impulses you have, the smoother a motor feels. Second, the v12 is smoother than the v8; more impulses, and better harmonic damping of the rotating assembly. Next, fives aren't anyworse than fours. Also, there are a lot of reasons to use different motor designs, not all are cost related. The only one I'm going to bother mentioning is packaging; try fitting a v8 in a sport bike. Honda (kind of, think oval pistons) tried it; they went back to fours. Lastly, engine size definetly has something to do with mileage. Motors are effecient when ran at an appreciable percentage of their max duty cycle. The only way to accomplish this is with crazy tall ratios, which reduce the torque output to the wheels, which brings this whole thing full circle to the only point I was trying to make in the first place. The reason you see so many different motors available is that ALL motor configurations have their drawbacks.
If you really still think it's as simple as v8 > all, take a look at how complicated the analysis of NVH is:
http://www.world-food.net/scientficj...ronment/50.pdf
If you really still think it's as simple as v8 > all, take a look at how complicated the analysis of NVH is:
http://www.world-food.net/scientficj...ronment/50.pdf
10-13-2010, 06:13 PM
#39
Team Owner
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: one thousand, five hundred miles north of Ft. Lauderdale for the summer.
Posts: 28,705
Received 213 Likes
on
153 Posts
i didn't agree with the entire article. one thing being that all inline engines are very efficient. and despite that inline four cylinder engines are [compromised] in the context of extremly high performance, they still make great usable power for a wide range of small to medium sized cars maximizing their limited displacement. straight fives and sixes do even better and both make good low-end power long after the compression falls off and burn oil.
no mystery why all tractor engines on the roadways are running big straight six diesels.
that 20 valve inline 5 audi engine running a turbo would have been great in the 44/68s.
no reason why a "tongue in cheek" thread can't have some other subtopics going on.
where's ehall and lart to spread more sunshine and cheer.
/
no mystery why all tractor engines on the roadways are running big straight six diesels.
that 20 valve inline 5 audi engine running a turbo would have been great in the 44/68s.
no reason why a "tongue in cheek" thread can't have some other subtopics going on.
where's ehall and lart to spread more sunshine and cheer.
/
Last edited by odurandina; 10-13-2010 at 07:54 PM. Reason: typo
10-13-2010, 06:30 PM
#40
Drifting
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Caraquet-- New-Brunswick-- Canada
Posts: 2,728
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
The reason 90% of 944 owners run Mahle it's because this this the only oil filter that should be use on a 944. From Pelican Mahle OC142 part # 944-107-201-08-m67 price at $6.95. Also part # 944-107-201-08 -OEM at $10.75 your choice, you want a sound piece of advice get rid of that Fram.
10-13-2010, 10:32 PM
#43
Drifting
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Caraquet-- New-Brunswick-- Canada
Posts: 2,728
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
+1 X a trillion ,not the first time he's done it & probably won't be the last ,best thing to do is not reply directly to this nonsense, has you will notice I did reply to __sweetskillsrk__question to the best of my knowledge because he ask about something that make sense (oil filter) witch is a very important part of our car maintenance.And I has a long time Porsches owner and being part of this community I feel we should help other owners by giving them the most accurate infos as possible ,not a bunch of BS.
10-13-2010, 11:46 PM
#44
Pro
The reason 90% of 944 owners run Mahle it's because this this the only oil filter that should be use on a 944. From Pelican Mahle OC142 part # 944-107-201-08-m67 price at $6.95. Also part # 944-107-201-08 -OEM at $10.75 your choice, you want a sound piece of advice get rid of that Fram.
10-14-2010, 12:34 AM
#45
Team Owner
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: one thousand, five hundred miles north of Ft. Lauderdale for the summer.
Posts: 28,705
Received 213 Likes
on
153 Posts
ask any mobil lubricants engineer which oil he'd prefer to run in the most punishing driving conditions.
15w-50 mineral oil or mobil 1 0w-40.
they're about the same at engine temperature.
that's right. they're about on the same order when it comes to viscosity and protection at operating temperature.
only one is far superior to the other at start up.
that's the oil i run in the winter. this will be my third winter running that oil.
anyone who takes my advice as gospel without checking around is not being prudent. i never made the thread for bob's advice to be the final word, but i guess the young guys are quite impressionable. i'm sticking very close to what bob talks about on his page, though when it comes to wear from cold weather startups.
i daily drive the hell out of my car, and that's a serious consideration for me. because i do more cold weather startups than some other people. if people want to demonize me for taking bob's side that's ok. a minority of people who prefer to sling mud rather than explain why bob the oil guy or myself is wrong - pretty weak.
so, once again, Mobile 1 0w-40 synthetic is still a rather thick oil and compares favorbably to conventional 15w-50 at operating temperatures --- the profound difference is that the 0w-40 also flows at very cold temps.
this wasn't a thread about racing. or running in the australian outback.
if someone's engine has really faded his oil pressure will show that he needs to be running a thicker oil. that's always a possibility.
at cold startup, the 0w-40 reads about 4 on my guage, and then fades to about 3 and a half at idle once the engine reaches operating temperature. my oil guage shows between 4 and a half and 5 while driving from normal to "hard," and after doing so returns to about 4 at idle.... if someone's 25 year old engine is really tired or he's driving the **** out of it, he might suffer an engine failure no matter what oil he runs in there.
/
Last edited by odurandina; 10-14-2010 at 10:41 AM.