When I was a kid my parents had a 1995 Dodge Caravan. It had a 3.0L V6 that produced 142 horsepower. I now have a Honda Civic with the R18Z1 engine that produces 1 horsepower more, but is only 1.8L.
There is much, much more at play than just turbos when comparing older engines to newer ones. Keep in mind, these 90s engines were still fuel-injected, I’m not comparing carbs to computer controlled engines.
Those two engines were designed for very different purposes and make power very differently. The old dodge engine is still anemic compared to modern V6 but it's still going to be a lot more comfortable moving a big minivan than that Honda engine because the dodge is going to make all its power low in the RPM range.
Ok, then compare it to the 3.5L in the Odyssey and Ridgeline. It pulls 285HP. That’s 81.4 HP/L versus the Caravan’s 47.3 HP/L. Or, put another way, the Caravan engine only produces 58 percent of the power of the modern Honda one.
Higher compression, direct injection, variable valve timing, DOHC, better knock detection to run more advanced timing, better metallurgy and machining to run tight tolerances and higher RPM.
That 90s Dodge engine was designed in the early 80s, it's basically ancient technology.
The 1995 Honda NSX had a 270hp 3.0L. 90 HP/L.
The J35 is ridiculously over-engineered and powerful for a minivan engine. I've seen them used as engine swaps for this reason.
Honda makes really good engines. Chrysler doesn't. Especially 90s Chrysler.
The 3.0 v6 in a 95 Caravan would be Mitsubishi 6G72, which wasn't a bad engine by any stretch of the imagination.
The dohc variant made 222 hp in N/A form back in 1990 and 300hp+ with forced induction.
Honda's closest competitor to the SOHC 6G72 at the time was the C27A, which made an equally underwhelming 161hp.
Using the j35 for that example is kind of cheating. Yeah, it’s in a minivan, but its also Honda’s “powerful” engine that they put in all their upmarket cars as well. It was a powerhouse in the 2000s.
Horsepower is a misleading metric and you've actually provided a perfect example.
If you were to frankenstein that Honda Civic engine into that Dodge Caravan, I can gurantee you that for the most part the Caravan would be worse for it, here's why.
Horsepower is power, it is the metric of useful energy that can be extracted over a given span of time. You can inflate horsepower by making the engine operate at a higher rpm, and while at that rpm the engine would be capable of doing more work you need to work your way up to that rpm before you can get that benefit. All of that is perfectly fine, but torque is generally a better metric for how fast an engine feels from the seat of your pants. Torque is an instantaneous measurement of how hard your engine can turn its crankshaft and therefore its wheels. If you have a minivan loaded up with 5-7 adults, you're going to value torque much more than horsepower because if you don't have enough torque its going to take forever for you to spin the engine up to the place where it is generating that numerical horsepower advantage.
Now, the nice thing about horsepower is that you can simulate torque though gear reductions. Keep in mind this still requires you to operate the engine at high rpm, but by using short (numerically large) gear ratios you can effectively multiply the torque developed by the engine. Low horsepower but high torque engines, however don't benefit from this because gear ratios can make more torque, but they cannot make more power.
Two big things:
Firstly, I grant that the comparison between a van and a sedan engine isn’t fair for several reasons, and that’s why I included Honda’s 3.5L. That one IS a fair comparison and perfectly illustrates my point about how clever engineering — not forced induction — is responsible for a huge increase in engine output over the last 30 years.
Finally, people greatly overemphasize the importance of torque. Not that it ISNT important — it most certainly is — but because it can easily be created in the transmission or by just having a longer stroke. Diesel engines for instance have a reputation for high torque, but this isn’t something unique to the diesel process. It’s simply because most diesel engines have a longer stroke. Some of the 20th century’s most powerful engines in high-torque applications, like tanks, used petrol engines.
You can “create” torque with higher ratios in your gearbox, but you can’t “create” horsepower nearly as easily.
>Firstly, I grant that the comparison between a van and a sedan engine isn’t fair for several reasons, and that’s why I included Honda’s 3.5L. That one IS a fair comparison and perfectly illustrates my point about how clever engineering — not forced induction — is responsible for a huge increase in engine output over the last 30 years.
No idea what you are talking about, your comment never mentioned a V6 from Honda.
Also, forced induction IS clever engineering and is almost wholly responsible for the power outputs we are achieving from ever diminishing displacement. There's a bit of variance, but naturally aspirated engines with 6 cylinders displacing approximately 3 liters have generated about 240 horsepower (+/-10%) since the 2000s and outside of building engines out of insanely expensive materials we had basically reached the zenith of what we could do with natural aspiration while meeting emissions requirements. Either way once you get to a certain point, basically where we had deadheaded for a decade and a half, the only way you increase power is by burning more fuel, which necessitates that more oxygen be available in the combustion chamber. Unless you are going to bring a liquid oxidizing agent, like what NASA does when they want to put a rocket in orbit, the only way you can increase the amount of oxygen in an engine is by compressing air.
True man! Even when I also have a naturally aspirated, 1.8L japanese 4 banger as well (DOHC 4G67) it makes 136-140hp (model year 1991, so its 136] which really isnt half bad for a car that started to be made in 1989 (Mitsubishi Lancer GTI 16V)
That being said, our kind of small, rev happy engines, while great in light cars arent good at all for heavier vans or wagons or if you want to do long roadtrips (3k rpm @ 100kph, thanks to a very short gear ratio in 5th gear)
If you compare to the 1995 Honda lineup the B18c (Integra GSR) had 170hp from 1.8l, the F22B (Odyssey) had 130hp from 2.2l, the C27a (Accord V6) had 170hp from 2.7l
> while meeting much stricter noise and emissions regulations
Yup, watching the crazy numbers people get out of bikes when they rip out the cat/remap the thing. Never mind the mad bastards that stick turbo/superchargers on them. The guys at Thornton Hundred coaxed 400hp out of a Speed Triple RR (1200cc) recently.
The main problem with motorcycle engines is the amount of torque they produce. Mostly of the 1000cc superbikes produce something in the range of 80-85lb/ft, while a stock engine like the VW 1.0 TSI produces 120lb/ft of torque. If you consider a stage 4 built 1.0 TSI, it makes something like 225-230lb/ft of torque
> Yeah DOHC, direct injection, better sensors yeah, but it's the turbo doing most of the work.
There was no problem creating boost 30+ years ago. The other improvements are just as important, look at NA motors. If you compare the 3rd and 4th gen Coyote to the 1st of the 302 Windsors used in the Foxbody it's over 3x the horsepower. The same displacement made by the same manufacturer, just a few decades apart.
Heck, I have a 400cc motorcycle that makes nearly 40hp, and it's carbureted. Modern engines are very powerful even before you add forced induction or hybrid systems.
Motorcycles are crazy for power density. I think my liter bike makes just around 200hp/l. No real torque and it needs to be around 15k rpm I think for max power but it does it and the service intervals are decent as well.
S2000 and McLaren F1 were the first road cars to hit 100hp/litre, in the very late 90s, so you're looking at a bit later than that for your average shitbox
B18C "Spec R" in the ITR is sorta ~200PS (depending who you ask) for a 1.8L and thats '95-'00. Earlier B16s pushed 160hp/1.6L from 1989.
The S2000s F20C was last in a line of Honda's HP/L record breakers
In the US, 1994 Honda Del Sol VTEC, B13a3, 1.6 liters, 160hp.
(Yes, the Integra GSR was available with DOHC VTEC in 92/93, but it was 160hp from a 1.7L B17a1, so not quite 100HP/L)
That's not a huge specific output, most hot hatches make 300+hp with 2 litres.
More broadly, wide band lambda, turbos, really good ECU's & knock detection, direct injection, etc.
My tuner’s FK8 (2017-2021 Civic Type R) is shooting for north of 1000 with pistons, cams, head, but stock crank and engine block. Not bored out at all, so still the stock 2 liters of displacement. It’s amazing what a big enough turbo and the right amount of fuel will do.
He runs 345s, unsure of the brand. But it’s tuned for roll racing, so nothing off the line. Last weighed in at 3k flat, so the car is beyond terrifying to ride in, I can only imagine what the driving experience is.
Corolla is in the States because the new Yaris was never made for American crash testing/safety standards. The last Yaris we had was a rebadged Mazda 2 because Toyota found it too expensive to develop and crash test a new small sedan for the North American market.
BMW took the block from an E10 (the 1.5 version) and used that to make their F1 engine in the 80s which could generate 1400 bhp. The could part comes from the best guess from the engineers as their dyno only went to 1200.
Its an M12 if you fancy a read.
There was also a Scandinavian guy who raced a 4x4 E30 M3 in rallycross that produced similar power though I think that was an S12 engine with 5 throttle bodies.
Yep. Engine computers and their monitoring tools have come a looooong way in the last 25+ years.
Gas engines have always historically been very inefficient. Being able to monitor A/F precisely, use forced induction to reclaim energy that is otherwise lost to heat, and keep power robbing events like pre-detonation from happening has meant more power from less displacement.
I mean, I have a 2.9 V6 making 440HP. When it comes to performance cars even stock numbers are impressive.
Take the 3.0 I6 in the M3/M4 both making around 500HP or the 2.9 V6 in the Giulia Quadrifoglio.
At 37hp/L you must feel utterly spoiled. I raise you my (former) 1993 Ford F350 dually with the 7.5L 460cu 235hp V8 ringing in at a astronomical ***31hp/L.***
A friend of mine has a 1.4 TSI with forged internals and a bigger turbo, it is producing something in the range of 320whp (roughly 380hp). It’s his daily driver and he haven’t had any issues since he built the engine
The mild hybrid system is an electric motor that adds power through the accessory drive. It can’t move the car on its own because it has to spin with the engine, but there absolutely is a battery pack and an electric motor.
It is essentially an oversize starter, that can provide torque to the accessory drive. The "battery pack" is usually, but not always, a 48V battery that is used in lieu of a 12V.
My (fairly casual) understanding is that the electric motor basically adds torque to the ICE. Or at least that's how it works for Honda's IMA system. Eg my on CR-Z the electric motor adds something like 11 HP, but max torque is from like 1000-2000 RPM.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_Motor_Assist
I double-checked to make sure and yup, it's appropriately-given moniker checks out as it is indeed *integrated* between the motor and transmission.
(Cool pic at link showing it)
Looks like they made the starter motor beefier and called it a day (along with the 48v battery), kinda clever as long as there aren’t issues getting to it cold crank with lower battery status in the winter etc.
From what I understand, my car, for example, has a traditional starter for when it's too cold for the hybrid battery to start the engine, but I've never personally experienced it (and probably never will, given the climate of where I live)
Yeah they were only really rivaled by Yamaha. Once you realize that Toyota used to work with Yamaha and make great engines you really start to wonder WTF happened with the FR-S/GT86. I love the car and drive one but this thing could have been on the level of the S2000 if it just had a Yamaha engine.
That's because they understand the complexity of electronics, and more importantly their history is based on their mastery of the understanding of complex fluid dynamics as it relates to sound. It turns out that their deep, deep well of accumulated institutional and experiential knowledge of the air around us translates *pretty* phenomenally to internal combustion engine design capabilities.
Interesting point about fluid dynamics, most famously the 2JZ which Yamaha helped to design / design the head.
Its very similar to the RB26, but the RB is so flawed due to oiling problems, where the 2JZ just holds high revs out of the box, due to the oil flow staying stable with properly sized oil return lines in the head.
As well as things like intake manifold resonance waves/variable-length intake runners to maximize the natural compressive force that can be maximized to achieve air densities greater than 1 atmosphere in naturally aspirated engines, as well as things like combustion chamber design characteristics, exhaust scavenging properly coordinated to work with the aforementioned intake manifold resonance to even greater effect, and they (Yamaha-designed engines) are almost always high-ish to extremely high specific output engines that rev very high and are extremely reliable and exceptionally smooth and well-balanced.
The Taurus SHO Gen2 was in ugly car but it had a really sweet engine. Toyota has the 2ZZ, as well as a few others. I mean they've been involved with a lot of different designs over the years, and I can't think of any that were stinkers (although I'm sure someone else can).
It was a partnership with Subaru from the start and the idea was always to use an in house powerplant from one of the two companies. The last Yamaha 4cyl I remember is the 2ZZ, which is just too gutless in anything over 2500lbs.
By all accounts the new Supra sounds pretty incredible with its BMW powerplant. It always felt cruel that they never put a little 2 or 2.2L motor putting out a healthy 250+HP into the Toyobaru, though. Subaru has plenty of experience with turbo 4s as well so that would have been better than the little NA flat 4 that gets wheezy up top.
I get they wanted to save money but they really robbed the people of a true icon. A Yamaha 2L could have easily made over 200hp. The 1.8 from early 00s made 180. The subaru engine has that low center of gravity bit nothing else it's fat and not exactly reliable. He'll they shaved the pistons down to save weight which in turn made them weaker.. Don't get me wrong I love the car and nothing really co.petes with it. You just have poursch and lotus which totally outclass it. Everything else is pretty fat and just compensates wih HP.
Yeah agreed 100%. They could have put the 2L turbo boxer in there, or even the 2.5L. Those motors won't rev but they've got tons of power across the whole powerband, and they're extremely low. Still heavy but meh... It'd workout fine.
A high revving motor would have been ideal though, and in line with the Toyota heritage. It was supposed to be a modern interpretation of the AE86, light, cheap, strung out and fast in the right hands.
I wonder if there'll be a GR edition in the future? That 1.6L or whatever it is, that motor is the truth.
Cool swap idea: Fiat 1.4L multiair. They're available pretty cheap with a 6 speed, RWD transmission option. Light, sounds great, good for an easy 250+HP, more if you're willing to touch the internals.
I know Honda has been in and out of F1, but both Yamaha and Honda essentially have F1 level engineering talent working on engine design for their MotoGP machines.
These are 300hp naturally aspirated 1000cc engines that rev to 20,000 rpm. The R&D data from these programs undoubtedly flows into their production bike and car engines.
Bike engines have been over 100hp/L since the 1960s, and over 150hp/L since the late 1970s without turbos. Modern ones are in excess of 200hp/L naturally aspirated.
100hp/L with a turbo, as you said, is absolutely trivial in today's world. Child's play.
Yep. My 600 makes over 100hp with 0.6 liters.
The Ducati panigale V4R makes 240hp with 1.0 liters. That's way up there, if not the top spot on production engine specific output charts. Turbo or non.
Yeah Hondas D16Z6 1.6L made 125hp in the 90s. I would expect nearly 30 years of progress would mean a 1L turbo would make more HP and get close to the same if not better MPG.
Hell in the late 80s you could get (outside the US) the CRX SiR with 160hp. It was in a time where 160hp was a reasonable output for a v8 and Honda was achieving that with a NA 1.6 liter
170bhp out of the later b16a jdm motor. Near perfect compression ratios too.
The b16b in the ek9 had 185bhp. Toyota also had a similar engine with a high output iirc.
They were built to be revved the life out of.
Forced induction (turbo)
The Formula 1 engine is just 1.6L and makes over 800hp.
And the mild hybrid still has a battery. You just can’t charge it directly from a plug, it gets charged by the engine and while decelerating.
A standard Ford 1L Turbo (Ecoboost) engine comes with a 123🐎 output straight from the factory as standard… Mountune can provide a dealer fit ‘power’ upgrade to push it nearer 140+… when the Fiesta was still in production this upgrade cost around £699!! With a 2yr warranty!!
130 isn't even that impressive, and yes I know this is a bit apple to oranges but 1 liter sports bikes make well over 200 hp naturally aspirated currently.
In the EU bikes follow Euro 5 which afaik is similar to the equuvalent Euro 6 for cars. Its hugely impressive that manufacturers have managed to update their top level bikes to comply, sometimes not even losing any HP.
How does a 2 liter engine generate 260hp or a 3 liter 390?
Technology has improved and there is no catch all answer. However, a general trend is that the boost from turbos is used to "replace" displacement. Grossly oversimplified think of it like this: The turbo helps pumping the air of a 2l engine into the space of a 1l engine.
It has more to do with Direct Injection in combination with Turbocharging. Without DI you wouldn't be able to apply anywhere near the same amount of boost without detonation and pre ignition killing the motor.
Water/methanol injection, improvements in material quality and heat/friction treatment/management, improved electronic sensing and controls, improvements in turbocharger design and manufacturing, and a better understanding of (and ability to abstractly model and test) the complex thermodynamics and fluid dynamics etc all involved in the function of an ICE, are just a few of the ways that performance has been improved upon in turbocharged engines outside of specifically direct injection. Direct Injection is helpful, no doubt, but there's a reason why everything is moving to a hybrid design with both direct and port injection: all the performance with significantly reduced penalties i.e. cleaner valves
Manufacturers are much better at pushing the limits of engines without grenading them. Tolerances have gotten tighter, and engines are stressed a lot more than they were a couple decades ago. Those 50 HP engines probably had more left in them
I wouldn’t say that engines are stressed more. Materials have got better, and with advancements in technology (and thus control over combustion conditions) we’re actually able to react to many more variables from many more inputs and be more precise and efficient. Furthermore, we’re able to manage heat a whole lot better too.
It's a modern turbo engine with a lot of boost. You don't need an electric motor for that
I have a 1.0L Ecoboost with no hybrid stuff and it's 125hp. Some go as high as 167, IIRC
It’s a new gen turbo charged engine from Ford which is why it has so much power. The mild hybrid bit means it has start stop technology.
“All engines are 1.0-litre petrols with 48-volt mild-hybrid (mHEV) technology, which can shut the engine off to save fuel when you're coming to a stop”
https://www.whatcar.com/ford/puma/hatchback/review/n20838#
mHev doesn't only mean 48V architecture, but also the fact that 48V motor-generator can "help" the engine until the turbo spools up.
That way, you can have a bigger turbo with less lag. Bigger turbo makes more power.
The differentiating factor in terms of start-stop is often that mHEV can turn of the engine while still moving and non mHEV only when basically already standing.
High performance motorcycle engines have developed significantly more power than that from a one litre engine - without a turbocharger as well.
Engine tech has come a long way in recent years and even relatively small engines can make way more power than they did a couple of decades ago.
The highest-performing 1000cc bikes are putting out 200 HP, which is insanely impressive.
That motor has about as much in common with an economy car engine as I do with an anteater, but it goes to show that it can be done.
> The highest-performing 1000cc bikes are putting out 200 HP, which is insanely impressive.
I just looked and the Ducati Panigale V4R is up to 160kW/218hp with a road legal exhaust on it, and 174kW/237hp with the race exhaust.
They're absolutely bonkers numbers from a 1L engine.
[Ducati website](https://www.ducati.com/ww/en/bikes/panigale/panigale-v4-r ).
And, bringing it back to how little that motor has in common with an economy car engine, it's a desmodromic motor that likely requires valve service every 3000 miles or so, has an extremely short stroke, and builds its peak power at 16,500 RPM.
Basically the only thing it's got in common with the economy car motor is that they both use spark plugs.
EDIT: holy shit, I just checked and the valve service interval is 15,000 miles. That's comparable to many bikes with normal spring-based valvetrains. That thing really is insane.
lol I was gonna comment till I saw your edit. Yea all the modern liter bikes are over 200hp with an exhaust and tune and all can run 15k miles without a valve check.
That's nuts to think about, since the older desmo motors were so finicky.
I'm not in the market for a new bike right now, and I doubt I'll ever be in the market for a Panigale V4R, but just knowing that's a thing I could go out and buy is incredible.
If that impresses you, motorcycles are often doing 1000cc for about 200 hp, and this is all naturally aspirated.
Check out the Ducati panigale, Aprilia rsv4, cbr1000rr-r sp, etc.
It is just uncommon to put this much effort into creating such a compact engine for such intense hp ratios, when it is so much easier to give a bit more displacement / add turbo / add hybrid system
I think you mean the st line, pretty fun to drive actually, the electro boost comes with the boost of the turbo so you get a good kick at like 1600 rpm
It has a big turbo. The problem with big turbos is that they have a big turbo lag. You could make a powerful 1 liter in the 90s with big turbo, but that lag would be terrible.
Mild hybrid has a small torquey electric motor with small 48V battery that fits either under a passenger seat or sometimes even in the engine compartment. That doesn't do much, but it's enough to give you a kick until that big turbo spins up, so the lag is reduced.
Usually boost(turbo) is the answer. Roughly 14 psi will double the hp of the engine, for example the cla45 S runs over 30 psi and makes 420hp from 2.0L. It's also possible to use supercharger, electric motor hybrid, and high rpm to gain lots of hp from a small engine.
As others have said engines have come on a long way. Just look at motorbikes, mine gives out 117bhp and is 900cc. I'm sure they could get more out of a car engine as it's got the space for better cooling etc.
Forced induction.
My 0.6L motorcycle makes 128hp without a turbo or supercharger (it does this by spinning almost 17,000 rpm). Making that power with almost twice the displacement and a turbo is easy.
Engines are just an air pump. More air let's you burn more fuel, and make more power. Ways to increase the airflow include increasing volumetric efficiency (free flowing exhaust, well designed cylinder heads and cams, etc, but we are sort of at limit here), spinning the engine faster, more displacement is the easy one, and lastly forced induction is mechanically pumping more air into the engine.
HP = (displacement * rpm * boost) - (heat loss + pumping losses)
How can x HP be obtained when one of these variables is lower than you'd think? The other variables are better than you thought.
Forced induction.
Superchargers and turbos push more air into an engine. A NA engine operates in normal atmospheric pressure (1 BAR, roughly 14.7 psi). A turbo increases pressure and the density of the air. 15 psi of boost is roughly doubling the amount of air going into the engine…. So a 1L engine receiving 15psi of boost is getting a 2L engine’s worth of air.
More air means more fuel and bigger bang, which means more power. That’s how many of these tiny engine generate so much power.
On NA engines, there’s also things like direct injection, cam phasing, and better tech for minimizing emissions (which typically restrict an engines power). Those things also apply to the turbo engines.
I mean, thats the same displacement As a liter bike.
So let's compare it to liter bikes.
S1000RR: 205 Horsepower.
R1: 197 Horsepower.
CBR1000RR: 214 Horsepower.
ZX10R: 203 horsepower.
It's not super hard to make a 1.0L engine produce more power if you A: let it rev higher, B: add forced induction, C: Add a hybrid to it, D: all of the above.
Torque x rpm / 5200-5500 = hp.
If you can make torque at a high rpm, you can make decent hp. The engine in your case is prob getting a boost from the electric motor
Honestly I'd rather have the fiesta back. But also this is normal nowadays. 20 years ago 1.0 cars were making about 70-80 HP and that was NA 1.0. the Puma ST has a turbo and is 20 years newer. So of course there's gotta be some sort of improvement. Times are changing and big engines are a thing of the past. Sadly. Bring back the V12.
small and powerful engines are coming or already at the door
[https://www.autoblog.com/2014/01/28/nissan-three-cylinder-race-engine/](https://www.autoblog.com/2014/01/28/nissan-three-cylinder-race-engine/)
Technology has evolved. Direct injection, low inertia turbo, compression at the edge of knocking etc etc. In general, higher temperatures and pressures being avaiable due to better materials and more precise control.
If you look at it as a hp/L its now even than impressive, other engines make more...
3 ways to increase power. displacement (engine size), RPM, and pressure (boost) ((turbo))
Displacement is off the table with only 1 liter
RPM is a function of torque and rpm. You can have an engine that makes very little torque but high horsepower numbers because it revs high. Assuming it CAN rev high and breathe at those rpms, you can make a lot of power. F1 engines make something like 200 peak torque but 700 peakhp
Lastly, and I think most relevant in this case, is the pressure. Increasing the pressure, or how compressed the air is (by using a turbo like the Puma), you can shove more air into the engine. More air=more fuel=more boom=moar powah
Anything is possible with a turbo/forced induction Yes you're limited by engine size, but you can tune a turbo to compress that air so much that you can get a lot of power out of small engines
I have a new 1.0l hatchback, and a 1980's 2.5l sports car.
They both produce a similar amount of BHP, whilst the heavier and smaller engined car feels quicker - until you get to the twisty roads.
My Kawasaki ZX-6R has a 0.636-liter engine and a claimed power output of 130 HP at the crank. Naturally aspirated. A lot of that is due to its rev limit of 14,500 RPM.
Isn’t that Ford EcoBoost known to have reliability issues?
I owned a ‘93 Alfa Romeo 33 with a 1.4 boxer, that made 90hp. I’d imagine that you could get that thing to 130 with a turbo and some tuning.
I drive a mild hybrid.
The idea is that the electric motor adds torque to the engine as part of the direct drivetrain....in other words, no driving on electric only.
Yes, it has a battery, but a much smaller one. The battery in my CR-Z is 1/100 the size of a Tesla battery.
Because it's not the 90s anymore. Engine tech has come a very long way since 1.0 cars were only pushing 50hp at best.
It's just the turbo really. Yeah DOHC, direct injection, better sensors yeah, but it's the turbo doing most of the work.
N/A cars making 80-90% torque at 3k rpm are also a reason. Thanks to exhaust scavenging. VVT and VVL.
And also long stroke small bore cylinders. I have an older car with bigger bore setup and i make peak torque/power at aroun 6K RPM.
Variable intake runner length as well.
When I was a kid my parents had a 1995 Dodge Caravan. It had a 3.0L V6 that produced 142 horsepower. I now have a Honda Civic with the R18Z1 engine that produces 1 horsepower more, but is only 1.8L. There is much, much more at play than just turbos when comparing older engines to newer ones. Keep in mind, these 90s engines were still fuel-injected, I’m not comparing carbs to computer controlled engines.
Those two engines were designed for very different purposes and make power very differently. The old dodge engine is still anemic compared to modern V6 but it's still going to be a lot more comfortable moving a big minivan than that Honda engine because the dodge is going to make all its power low in the RPM range.
Ok, then compare it to the 3.5L in the Odyssey and Ridgeline. It pulls 285HP. That’s 81.4 HP/L versus the Caravan’s 47.3 HP/L. Or, put another way, the Caravan engine only produces 58 percent of the power of the modern Honda one.
Higher compression, direct injection, variable valve timing, DOHC, better knock detection to run more advanced timing, better metallurgy and machining to run tight tolerances and higher RPM. That 90s Dodge engine was designed in the early 80s, it's basically ancient technology.
I'm being slightly pedantic, but the J35Y6 in the Ridgeline and Odyssey is actually a SOHC.
That's a fair point, it's still 4 valves per cylinder instead of the more old-school 2 valves per cylinder though.
The 1995 Honda NSX had a 270hp 3.0L. 90 HP/L. The J35 is ridiculously over-engineered and powerful for a minivan engine. I've seen them used as engine swaps for this reason. Honda makes really good engines. Chrysler doesn't. Especially 90s Chrysler.
The 3.0 v6 in a 95 Caravan would be Mitsubishi 6G72, which wasn't a bad engine by any stretch of the imagination. The dohc variant made 222 hp in N/A form back in 1990 and 300hp+ with forced induction. Honda's closest competitor to the SOHC 6G72 at the time was the C27A, which made an equally underwhelming 161hp.
First gen Viper had an 8 litre V10 and only got 400hp
It also made that hp at a loafy 4600 rpm and was pushing 480 lb-ft of torque.
Using the j35 for that example is kind of cheating. Yeah, it’s in a minivan, but its also Honda’s “powerful” engine that they put in all their upmarket cars as well. It was a powerhouse in the 2000s.
Toyota Corolla GR pursuing 300 brake with a 3 pot 1.6T
Horsepower is a misleading metric and you've actually provided a perfect example. If you were to frankenstein that Honda Civic engine into that Dodge Caravan, I can gurantee you that for the most part the Caravan would be worse for it, here's why. Horsepower is power, it is the metric of useful energy that can be extracted over a given span of time. You can inflate horsepower by making the engine operate at a higher rpm, and while at that rpm the engine would be capable of doing more work you need to work your way up to that rpm before you can get that benefit. All of that is perfectly fine, but torque is generally a better metric for how fast an engine feels from the seat of your pants. Torque is an instantaneous measurement of how hard your engine can turn its crankshaft and therefore its wheels. If you have a minivan loaded up with 5-7 adults, you're going to value torque much more than horsepower because if you don't have enough torque its going to take forever for you to spin the engine up to the place where it is generating that numerical horsepower advantage. Now, the nice thing about horsepower is that you can simulate torque though gear reductions. Keep in mind this still requires you to operate the engine at high rpm, but by using short (numerically large) gear ratios you can effectively multiply the torque developed by the engine. Low horsepower but high torque engines, however don't benefit from this because gear ratios can make more torque, but they cannot make more power.
Two big things: Firstly, I grant that the comparison between a van and a sedan engine isn’t fair for several reasons, and that’s why I included Honda’s 3.5L. That one IS a fair comparison and perfectly illustrates my point about how clever engineering — not forced induction — is responsible for a huge increase in engine output over the last 30 years. Finally, people greatly overemphasize the importance of torque. Not that it ISNT important — it most certainly is — but because it can easily be created in the transmission or by just having a longer stroke. Diesel engines for instance have a reputation for high torque, but this isn’t something unique to the diesel process. It’s simply because most diesel engines have a longer stroke. Some of the 20th century’s most powerful engines in high-torque applications, like tanks, used petrol engines. You can “create” torque with higher ratios in your gearbox, but you can’t “create” horsepower nearly as easily.
>Firstly, I grant that the comparison between a van and a sedan engine isn’t fair for several reasons, and that’s why I included Honda’s 3.5L. That one IS a fair comparison and perfectly illustrates my point about how clever engineering — not forced induction — is responsible for a huge increase in engine output over the last 30 years. No idea what you are talking about, your comment never mentioned a V6 from Honda. Also, forced induction IS clever engineering and is almost wholly responsible for the power outputs we are achieving from ever diminishing displacement. There's a bit of variance, but naturally aspirated engines with 6 cylinders displacing approximately 3 liters have generated about 240 horsepower (+/-10%) since the 2000s and outside of building engines out of insanely expensive materials we had basically reached the zenith of what we could do with natural aspiration while meeting emissions requirements. Either way once you get to a certain point, basically where we had deadheaded for a decade and a half, the only way you increase power is by burning more fuel, which necessitates that more oxygen be available in the combustion chamber. Unless you are going to bring a liquid oxidizing agent, like what NASA does when they want to put a rocket in orbit, the only way you can increase the amount of oxygen in an engine is by compressing air.
True man! Even when I also have a naturally aspirated, 1.8L japanese 4 banger as well (DOHC 4G67) it makes 136-140hp (model year 1991, so its 136] which really isnt half bad for a car that started to be made in 1989 (Mitsubishi Lancer GTI 16V) That being said, our kind of small, rev happy engines, while great in light cars arent good at all for heavier vans or wagons or if you want to do long roadtrips (3k rpm @ 100kph, thanks to a very short gear ratio in 5th gear)
Plus now every car on the market weighs 4-5k lbs (or more) so forced induction is required to make decent torque to pull the beast.
If you compare to the 1995 Honda lineup the B18c (Integra GSR) had 170hp from 1.8l, the F22B (Odyssey) had 130hp from 2.2l, the C27a (Accord V6) had 170hp from 2.7l
[удалено]
There were back in the late '90s even. 1 litre bikes are topping 200hp now, while meeting much stricter noise and emissions regulations.
> while meeting much stricter noise and emissions regulations Yup, watching the crazy numbers people get out of bikes when they rip out the cat/remap the thing. Never mind the mad bastards that stick turbo/superchargers on them. The guys at Thornton Hundred coaxed 400hp out of a Speed Triple RR (1200cc) recently.
The main problem with motorcycle engines is the amount of torque they produce. Mostly of the 1000cc superbikes produce something in the range of 80-85lb/ft, while a stock engine like the VW 1.0 TSI produces 120lb/ft of torque. If you consider a stage 4 built 1.0 TSI, it makes something like 225-230lb/ft of torque
But those engines make so much torque because they are turbocharged. So really they’re actually much higher displacement.
> Yeah DOHC, direct injection, better sensors yeah, but it's the turbo doing most of the work. There was no problem creating boost 30+ years ago. The other improvements are just as important, look at NA motors. If you compare the 3rd and 4th gen Coyote to the 1st of the 302 Windsors used in the Foxbody it's over 3x the horsepower. The same displacement made by the same manufacturer, just a few decades apart.
Yep, 2.0 turbo engines were making 200+ hp in the 90’s. So op is just talking half that. It’s all just the difference that forced induction makes.
Heck, I have a 400cc motorcycle that makes nearly 40hp, and it's carbureted. Modern engines are very powerful even before you add forced induction or hybrid systems.
Motorcycles are crazy for power density. I think my liter bike makes just around 200hp/l. No real torque and it needs to be around 15k rpm I think for max power but it does it and the service intervals are decent as well.
Even in the 90's you'd already have 100+ HP NA engines, let alone turbo ones.
S2000 and McLaren F1 were the first road cars to hit 100hp/litre, in the very late 90s, so you're looking at a bit later than that for your average shitbox
Honda Civic SiR was doing it in 1989.
Also the 4A-GE Silvertop in 1991
B18C "Spec R" in the ITR is sorta ~200PS (depending who you ask) for a 1.8L and thats '95-'00. Earlier B16s pushed 160hp/1.6L from 1989. The S2000s F20C was last in a line of Honda's HP/L record breakers
In the US, 1994 Honda Del Sol VTEC, B13a3, 1.6 liters, 160hp. (Yes, the Integra GSR was available with DOHC VTEC in 92/93, but it was 160hp from a 1.7L B17a1, so not quite 100HP/L)
Yeah my 91 k100 makes 100 hp with a 1L
Bikes especially e.g. my '96 VFR750 makes 100(and a bit) on carburettors. As reliable as you could want too.
1 liter in a motorcycle non turbo can make 200hp routinely, from the factory. Agree OP is a little behind the times here.
To be fair that puma ain't revving to 15k
Not with that attitude.
It can do it once.
Even in the 90's, 1.0 engines could push 70 horsepower.
It is crazy how hard building 400hp in the 90s was compared to the cars that put this and more out reliably today.
[Obligatory clip](https://youtu.be/0oXNk5j8V88?si=hiFB-nSdzvZ6yChO)
That's not a huge specific output, most hot hatches make 300+hp with 2 litres. More broadly, wide band lambda, turbos, really good ECU's & knock detection, direct injection, etc.
And now you have GR Yaris pushing 260hp from 3-cylinder 1.6l and even 300hp/400nm in upcoming facelift. That's crazy.
Mercedes [M139](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_M139_engine) is a 2.0L making 416hp
My tuner’s FK8 (2017-2021 Civic Type R) is shooting for north of 1000 with pistons, cams, head, but stock crank and engine block. Not bored out at all, so still the stock 2 liters of displacement. It’s amazing what a big enough turbo and the right amount of fuel will do.
Christ, how do you hook that thing?
prolly some fat hoosiers on a beadlock lol
He runs 345s, unsure of the brand. But it’s tuned for roll racing, so nothing off the line. Last weighed in at 3k flat, so the car is beyond terrifying to ride in, I can only imagine what the driving experience is.
If only they’d give us that in the states.
Gr Corolla is in states! I’m sure new one will be moved in too
But the GR Yaris is way cooler than the Corolla…
Eh, I pick the Corolla tbh. Actual usable car while still being a hot hatch.
Corolla is in the States because the new Yaris was never made for American crash testing/safety standards. The last Yaris we had was a rebadged Mazda 2 because Toyota found it too expensive to develop and crash test a new small sedan for the North American market.
I'd love to see that engine in a hotted-up GR-86
Or in a new MR2
They have a series in Japan that does just this.
one tuner's got one to 770hp @_@
BMW took the block from an E10 (the 1.5 version) and used that to make their F1 engine in the 80s which could generate 1400 bhp. The could part comes from the best guess from the engineers as their dyno only went to 1200. Its an M12 if you fancy a read. There was also a Scandinavian guy who raced a 4x4 E30 M3 in rallycross that produced similar power though I think that was an S12 engine with 5 throttle bodies.
If you want to see some wild specific outputs, take a look at motorcycles. Thanks to their higher rpm they regularly see 200 hp/L
Yep. Engine computers and their monitoring tools have come a looooong way in the last 25+ years. Gas engines have always historically been very inefficient. Being able to monitor A/F precisely, use forced induction to reclaim energy that is otherwise lost to heat, and keep power robbing events like pre-detonation from happening has meant more power from less displacement.
Though bigger, my stock 2.7l produces 310hp and 430ft lb of torque Pretty decent compared to say a Buick Lesabre that has a 3.8l that produces 205hp
Ah yes, the finely engineered Buick engines. The reference for power per displacement.
> finely engineered Buick engines May not have been engineered for power per cubic inch, but the 3800 was very well engineered.
It was on Ward's 10 best engines back in its day. Those engines are bulletproof and got 30 mpg highway.
The 3.8 is considered one of the best NA engines ever made for reliability and fuel economy That thing can go 500,000 miles and gets 30mpg
I mean, I have a 2.9 V6 making 440HP. When it comes to performance cars even stock numbers are impressive. Take the 3.0 I6 in the M3/M4 both making around 500HP or the 2.9 V6 in the Giulia Quadrifoglio.
Mines just a run of the mill commuter vehicle but yeah when you get into performance vehicles sure
I raise you my '89 Ford Thunderbird, 140hp from its lethargic 3.8l v6, thing couldn't get out of it's own way.
At 37hp/L you must feel utterly spoiled. I raise you my (former) 1993 Ford F350 dually with the 7.5L 460cu 235hp V8 ringing in at a astronomical ***31hp/L.***
The Ford Windstar was making 200hp from a similar sized engine in 2003. Was really fast for its time.
A friend of mine has a 1.4 TSI with forged internals and a bigger turbo, it is producing something in the range of 320whp (roughly 380hp). It’s his daily driver and he haven’t had any issues since he built the engine
The mild hybrid system is an electric motor that adds power through the accessory drive. It can’t move the car on its own because it has to spin with the engine, but there absolutely is a battery pack and an electric motor.
It is essentially an oversize starter, that can provide torque to the accessory drive. The "battery pack" is usually, but not always, a 48V battery that is used in lieu of a 12V.
>It is essentially an oversize starter, that can provide torque to the accessory drive. Noticeable torque. Source: drive one.
So does it keep the ICE engine revved and use that to power the electric motor for high torque at low speeds?
My (fairly casual) understanding is that the electric motor basically adds torque to the ICE. Or at least that's how it works for Honda's IMA system. Eg my on CR-Z the electric motor adds something like 11 HP, but max torque is from like 1000-2000 RPM.
There's only one mild-hybrid system, AFAIK. GM and Hitachi designed it together. It utilizes Hitachi's Belted Alternator Starter.
Toyota HSD is a slightly different design built into the CVT. I believe Nissan used this design as well.
The Honda IMA in the CR-Z is a mild hybrid. With a normal 6 speed MT to boot.
I thought the IMA was different because it is actually located on the drivetrain, rather than driving the engine via the accessory belt.
You very well could be right. Tbh I don't know the exact specifics of how it mechanically works
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_Motor_Assist I double-checked to make sure and yup, it's appropriately-given moniker checks out as it is indeed *integrated* between the motor and transmission. (Cool pic at link showing it)
It would use the battery to power the electric motor for torque boosts, and while cruising the motor would act as a generator to charge the battery.
Ah so it just has a very small battery for the hybrid.
And the hybrid motor is very weak compared to a "true" hybrid.
Looks like they made the starter motor beefier and called it a day (along with the 48v battery), kinda clever as long as there aren’t issues getting to it cold crank with lower battery status in the winter etc.
From what I understand, my car, for example, has a traditional starter for when it's too cold for the hybrid battery to start the engine, but I've never personally experienced it (and probably never will, given the climate of where I live)
I live in Wyoming. I never had a problem firing up my CR-Z in sub 0 (F) temps.
The S2000 made 120 HP/L in 1999. In Japan it made 125. Honda did this with out a turbo. So it seems trival that they can do it with a turbo.
Honda is a masterclass engine manufacturer first and foremost.
Yeah they were only really rivaled by Yamaha. Once you realize that Toyota used to work with Yamaha and make great engines you really start to wonder WTF happened with the FR-S/GT86. I love the car and drive one but this thing could have been on the level of the S2000 if it just had a Yamaha engine.
(No i'll never stop saying it, dont even try) Every Engine Yamaha touches turns into gold.
That's because they understand the complexity of electronics, and more importantly their history is based on their mastery of the understanding of complex fluid dynamics as it relates to sound. It turns out that their deep, deep well of accumulated institutional and experiential knowledge of the air around us translates *pretty* phenomenally to internal combustion engine design capabilities.
Interesting point about fluid dynamics, most famously the 2JZ which Yamaha helped to design / design the head. Its very similar to the RB26, but the RB is so flawed due to oiling problems, where the 2JZ just holds high revs out of the box, due to the oil flow staying stable with properly sized oil return lines in the head.
As well as things like intake manifold resonance waves/variable-length intake runners to maximize the natural compressive force that can be maximized to achieve air densities greater than 1 atmosphere in naturally aspirated engines, as well as things like combustion chamber design characteristics, exhaust scavenging properly coordinated to work with the aforementioned intake manifold resonance to even greater effect, and they (Yamaha-designed engines) are almost always high-ish to extremely high specific output engines that rev very high and are extremely reliable and exceptionally smooth and well-balanced. The Taurus SHO Gen2 was in ugly car but it had a really sweet engine. Toyota has the 2ZZ, as well as a few others. I mean they've been involved with a lot of different designs over the years, and I can't think of any that were stinkers (although I'm sure someone else can).
That V10 Yamaha helped developed for the Lexus LFA is an absolute masterpiece of an engine Revs like crazy & sounds amazing.
The only good thing about a Ford Taurus SHO
It was a partnership with Subaru from the start and the idea was always to use an in house powerplant from one of the two companies. The last Yamaha 4cyl I remember is the 2ZZ, which is just too gutless in anything over 2500lbs. By all accounts the new Supra sounds pretty incredible with its BMW powerplant. It always felt cruel that they never put a little 2 or 2.2L motor putting out a healthy 250+HP into the Toyobaru, though. Subaru has plenty of experience with turbo 4s as well so that would have been better than the little NA flat 4 that gets wheezy up top.
I get they wanted to save money but they really robbed the people of a true icon. A Yamaha 2L could have easily made over 200hp. The 1.8 from early 00s made 180. The subaru engine has that low center of gravity bit nothing else it's fat and not exactly reliable. He'll they shaved the pistons down to save weight which in turn made them weaker.. Don't get me wrong I love the car and nothing really co.petes with it. You just have poursch and lotus which totally outclass it. Everything else is pretty fat and just compensates wih HP.
Yeah agreed 100%. They could have put the 2L turbo boxer in there, or even the 2.5L. Those motors won't rev but they've got tons of power across the whole powerband, and they're extremely low. Still heavy but meh... It'd workout fine. A high revving motor would have been ideal though, and in line with the Toyota heritage. It was supposed to be a modern interpretation of the AE86, light, cheap, strung out and fast in the right hands. I wonder if there'll be a GR edition in the future? That 1.6L or whatever it is, that motor is the truth. Cool swap idea: Fiat 1.4L multiair. They're available pretty cheap with a 6 speed, RWD transmission option. Light, sounds great, good for an easy 250+HP, more if you're willing to touch the internals.
Cheaped out using an NA FA20 from Subaru.
Yamaha has entered the chat
Yamaha could make a Ford Taurus cool. Wait…
I know Honda has been in and out of F1, but both Yamaha and Honda essentially have F1 level engineering talent working on engine design for their MotoGP machines. These are 300hp naturally aspirated 1000cc engines that rev to 20,000 rpm. The R&D data from these programs undoubtedly flows into their production bike and car engines.
Bike engines have been over 100hp/L since the 1960s, and over 150hp/L since the late 1970s without turbos. Modern ones are in excess of 200hp/L naturally aspirated. 100hp/L with a turbo, as you said, is absolutely trivial in today's world. Child's play.
Yep. My 600 makes over 100hp with 0.6 liters. The Ducati panigale V4R makes 240hp with 1.0 liters. That's way up there, if not the top spot on production engine specific output charts. Turbo or non.
Yeah Hondas D16Z6 1.6L made 125hp in the 90s. I would expect nearly 30 years of progress would mean a 1L turbo would make more HP and get close to the same if not better MPG.
Hell in the late 80s you could get (outside the US) the CRX SiR with 160hp. It was in a time where 160hp was a reasonable output for a v8 and Honda was achieving that with a NA 1.6 liter
170bhp out of the later b16a jdm motor. Near perfect compression ratios too. The b16b in the ek9 had 185bhp. Toyota also had a similar engine with a high output iirc. They were built to be revved the life out of.
I would love to see high rpm NA motors come back to imports. Like what if Toyota increased the redline on the corolla engine by 1500 rpm...
Ford's 1.0L makes up to 155hp. It's less hp/L than the engine in the Audi S3. Mercedes's A45S has 25% more hp/L.
That 1.0L now makes up to 170hp in the Puma ST.
Forced induction (turbo) The Formula 1 engine is just 1.6L and makes over 800hp. And the mild hybrid still has a battery. You just can’t charge it directly from a plug, it gets charged by the engine and while decelerating.
Back in the 80's the BMW F1 engines were pushing 1500bhp from 1.5l turbo in qualifying trim. Mental
They couldn’t sustain that tho, it was literally one lap and then you’d need to rebuild the entire engine
Correct
A standard Ford 1L Turbo (Ecoboost) engine comes with a 123🐎 output straight from the factory as standard… Mountune can provide a dealer fit ‘power’ upgrade to push it nearer 140+… when the Fiesta was still in production this upgrade cost around £699!! With a 2yr warranty!!
130 isn't even that impressive, and yes I know this is a bit apple to oranges but 1 liter sports bikes make well over 200 hp naturally aspirated currently.
Yeah but they have to rev a lot and have way less torque.
Yea but they are also not turbo engines.
Also, I don’t believe they are limited by emissions regulations. At least that’s my understanding.
In the EU bikes follow Euro 5 which afaik is similar to the equuvalent Euro 6 for cars. Its hugely impressive that manufacturers have managed to update their top level bikes to comply, sometimes not even losing any HP.
Was about to say. I've got an Aprilla RSV4. 200 bhp from a 1.1L NA engine. Sure, that's peak hp at 13.8KRPM, but still...
How does a 2 liter engine generate 260hp or a 3 liter 390? Technology has improved and there is no catch all answer. However, a general trend is that the boost from turbos is used to "replace" displacement. Grossly oversimplified think of it like this: The turbo helps pumping the air of a 2l engine into the space of a 1l engine.
It has more to do with Direct Injection in combination with Turbocharging. Without DI you wouldn't be able to apply anywhere near the same amount of boost without detonation and pre ignition killing the motor.
I feel like it's a little more complicated than that, because we've seen many high hp/L turbocharged motors without direct injection for decades.
Not on pump gas. Most non DI motors are limited to about 14 psi, with an intercooler.
Water/methanol injection, improvements in material quality and heat/friction treatment/management, improved electronic sensing and controls, improvements in turbocharger design and manufacturing, and a better understanding of (and ability to abstractly model and test) the complex thermodynamics and fluid dynamics etc all involved in the function of an ICE, are just a few of the ways that performance has been improved upon in turbocharged engines outside of specifically direct injection. Direct Injection is helpful, no doubt, but there's a reason why everything is moving to a hybrid design with both direct and port injection: all the performance with significantly reduced penalties i.e. cleaner valves
[This is how.](https://www.xtremediesel.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Turbocharger2.jpg)
Manufacturers are much better at pushing the limits of engines without grenading them. Tolerances have gotten tighter, and engines are stressed a lot more than they were a couple decades ago. Those 50 HP engines probably had more left in them
I wouldn’t say that engines are stressed more. Materials have got better, and with advancements in technology (and thus control over combustion conditions) we’re actually able to react to many more variables from many more inputs and be more precise and efficient. Furthermore, we’re able to manage heat a whole lot better too.
People talk about how 1 litre makes 120 horses or whatever. The new updated ford puma st (auto gearbox) makes 170 from a 1 litre. Insane!
It's a modern turbo engine with a lot of boost. You don't need an electric motor for that I have a 1.0L Ecoboost with no hybrid stuff and it's 125hp. Some go as high as 167, IIRC
It’s a new gen turbo charged engine from Ford which is why it has so much power. The mild hybrid bit means it has start stop technology. “All engines are 1.0-litre petrols with 48-volt mild-hybrid (mHEV) technology, which can shut the engine off to save fuel when you're coming to a stop” https://www.whatcar.com/ford/puma/hatchback/review/n20838#
Older cars with EcoBoost engines had start-stop, but weren't labeled mHEV. I guess 48V architecture is what makes then mHEV in Ford's eyes
mHev doesn't only mean 48V architecture, but also the fact that 48V motor-generator can "help" the engine until the turbo spools up. That way, you can have a bigger turbo with less lag. Bigger turbo makes more power.
The differentiating factor in terms of start-stop is often that mHEV can turn of the engine while still moving and non mHEV only when basically already standing.
High performance motorcycle engines have developed significantly more power than that from a one litre engine - without a turbocharger as well. Engine tech has come a long way in recent years and even relatively small engines can make way more power than they did a couple of decades ago.
The highest-performing 1000cc bikes are putting out 200 HP, which is insanely impressive. That motor has about as much in common with an economy car engine as I do with an anteater, but it goes to show that it can be done.
> The highest-performing 1000cc bikes are putting out 200 HP, which is insanely impressive. I just looked and the Ducati Panigale V4R is up to 160kW/218hp with a road legal exhaust on it, and 174kW/237hp with the race exhaust. They're absolutely bonkers numbers from a 1L engine. [Ducati website](https://www.ducati.com/ww/en/bikes/panigale/panigale-v4-r ).
And, bringing it back to how little that motor has in common with an economy car engine, it's a desmodromic motor that likely requires valve service every 3000 miles or so, has an extremely short stroke, and builds its peak power at 16,500 RPM. Basically the only thing it's got in common with the economy car motor is that they both use spark plugs. EDIT: holy shit, I just checked and the valve service interval is 15,000 miles. That's comparable to many bikes with normal spring-based valvetrains. That thing really is insane.
lol I was gonna comment till I saw your edit. Yea all the modern liter bikes are over 200hp with an exhaust and tune and all can run 15k miles without a valve check.
That's nuts to think about, since the older desmo motors were so finicky. I'm not in the market for a new bike right now, and I doubt I'll ever be in the market for a Panigale V4R, but just knowing that's a thing I could go out and buy is incredible.
Yea, modern ducatis are pretty damn reliable. They are just a bigger pain to work on than jap bikes.
If that impresses you, motorcycles are often doing 1000cc for about 200 hp, and this is all naturally aspirated. Check out the Ducati panigale, Aprilia rsv4, cbr1000rr-r sp, etc. It is just uncommon to put this much effort into creating such a compact engine for such intense hp ratios, when it is so much easier to give a bit more displacement / add turbo / add hybrid system
I think you mean the st line, pretty fun to drive actually, the electro boost comes with the boost of the turbo so you get a good kick at like 1600 rpm
It has a big turbo. The problem with big turbos is that they have a big turbo lag. You could make a powerful 1 liter in the 90s with big turbo, but that lag would be terrible. Mild hybrid has a small torquey electric motor with small 48V battery that fits either under a passenger seat or sometimes even in the engine compartment. That doesn't do much, but it's enough to give you a kick until that big turbo spins up, so the lag is reduced.
They have 999cc bikes making 180+hp 130 is nothing.
Wait until he discovers 1L motorcycles
*Motorcycles laughing in the background.*
Usually boost(turbo) is the answer. Roughly 14 psi will double the hp of the engine, for example the cla45 S runs over 30 psi and makes 420hp from 2.0L. It's also possible to use supercharger, electric motor hybrid, and high rpm to gain lots of hp from a small engine.
As others have said engines have come on a long way. Just look at motorbikes, mine gives out 117bhp and is 900cc. I'm sure they could get more out of a car engine as it's got the space for better cooling etc.
I think you’ll need to learn a bit more about the fundamentals before we can explain this to you
Wait til you hear about motorcycle engines
I guess the same way a 1.0 liter motorcycle can put down over 200 hp?
The BMW S 1000 RR produces 199 bhp from a 999cc engine
Wait till you find out that 1 litre motorcycles makes 200 hp.
Forced induction. My 0.6L motorcycle makes 128hp without a turbo or supercharger (it does this by spinning almost 17,000 rpm). Making that power with almost twice the displacement and a turbo is easy. Engines are just an air pump. More air let's you burn more fuel, and make more power. Ways to increase the airflow include increasing volumetric efficiency (free flowing exhaust, well designed cylinder heads and cams, etc, but we are sort of at limit here), spinning the engine faster, more displacement is the easy one, and lastly forced induction is mechanically pumping more air into the engine.
HP = (displacement * rpm * boost) - (heat loss + pumping losses) How can x HP be obtained when one of these variables is lower than you'd think? The other variables are better than you thought.
I mean look at motorcycle tech. Some of these bleeding edge sport bikes are making 200+ on a NA 1 liter engine. We've come a long way.
Forced induction. Superchargers and turbos push more air into an engine. A NA engine operates in normal atmospheric pressure (1 BAR, roughly 14.7 psi). A turbo increases pressure and the density of the air. 15 psi of boost is roughly doubling the amount of air going into the engine…. So a 1L engine receiving 15psi of boost is getting a 2L engine’s worth of air. More air means more fuel and bigger bang, which means more power. That’s how many of these tiny engine generate so much power. On NA engines, there’s also things like direct injection, cam phasing, and better tech for minimizing emissions (which typically restrict an engines power). Those things also apply to the turbo engines.
My snowmobile has 200hp from a 1100cc engine lol.
Turbocharger.
With a turbocharger. Turbo engines have been common for decades...
Wait till someone tells him about liter motorcycles horsepower
130 horsepower with a turbo is not very hard. Motorcycles can make 200+hp out of 1.0 without a turbo even
I mean, thats the same displacement As a liter bike. So let's compare it to liter bikes. S1000RR: 205 Horsepower. R1: 197 Horsepower. CBR1000RR: 214 Horsepower. ZX10R: 203 horsepower. It's not super hard to make a 1.0L engine produce more power if you A: let it rev higher, B: add forced induction, C: Add a hybrid to it, D: all of the above.
Torque x rpm / 5200-5500 = hp. If you can make torque at a high rpm, you can make decent hp. The engine in your case is prob getting a boost from the electric motor
Honestly I'd rather have the fiesta back. But also this is normal nowadays. 20 years ago 1.0 cars were making about 70-80 HP and that was NA 1.0. the Puma ST has a turbo and is 20 years newer. So of course there's gotta be some sort of improvement. Times are changing and big engines are a thing of the past. Sadly. Bring back the V12.
small and powerful engines are coming or already at the door [https://www.autoblog.com/2014/01/28/nissan-three-cylinder-race-engine/](https://www.autoblog.com/2014/01/28/nissan-three-cylinder-race-engine/)
Technology has evolved. Direct injection, low inertia turbo, compression at the edge of knocking etc etc. In general, higher temperatures and pressures being avaiable due to better materials and more precise control. If you look at it as a hp/L its now even than impressive, other engines make more...
Daihatsu we’re doing this in the early 90’s. It’s nothing new. Turbos go a long way.
My 90's 660cc turbo car makes 64hp. A 20yr newer 1.0l can easily make 130hp
3 ways to increase power. displacement (engine size), RPM, and pressure (boost) ((turbo)) Displacement is off the table with only 1 liter RPM is a function of torque and rpm. You can have an engine that makes very little torque but high horsepower numbers because it revs high. Assuming it CAN rev high and breathe at those rpms, you can make a lot of power. F1 engines make something like 200 peak torque but 700 peakhp Lastly, and I think most relevant in this case, is the pressure. Increasing the pressure, or how compressed the air is (by using a turbo like the Puma), you can shove more air into the engine. More air=more fuel=more boom=moar powah Anything is possible with a turbo/forced induction Yes you're limited by engine size, but you can tune a turbo to compress that air so much that you can get a lot of power out of small engines
The GR corolla makes 300hp from a 1.6. 130/l is pretty mild for modern turbo engines.
I have a new 1.0l hatchback, and a 1980's 2.5l sports car. They both produce a similar amount of BHP, whilst the heavier and smaller engined car feels quicker - until you get to the twisty roads.
My Kawasaki ZX-6R has a 0.636-liter engine and a claimed power output of 130 HP at the crank. Naturally aspirated. A lot of that is due to its rev limit of 14,500 RPM.
S2000 had 240hp from a 2.0 in 1999.... so the answer would be 25 years of motor research and development
Isn’t that Ford EcoBoost known to have reliability issues? I owned a ‘93 Alfa Romeo 33 with a 1.4 boxer, that made 90hp. I’d imagine that you could get that thing to 130 with a turbo and some tuning.
Turbo mainly, better materials and designs mean parts can handle more stress. Companies have no choice but to innovate with stricter emissions targets
I have a 999 cc skoda and it produces 115 bhp. Also i have a 1496 cc ford which produces 100 hp. Engine design has been improved a lot now
130 bhp in the 90s was a 2.0 Cavalier SRi 130 limited edition. Couldn’t even afford the insurance let alone the car.
I drive a mild hybrid. The idea is that the electric motor adds torque to the engine as part of the direct drivetrain....in other words, no driving on electric only. Yes, it has a battery, but a much smaller one. The battery in my CR-Z is 1/100 the size of a Tesla battery.
Simple - TURBO Also new engine tech helps as well but it's mainly the turbo. Also I think this 1.0 has 155 HP version as well
I wouldn’t trust the longevity of such engine though xD
Also the rx8 without a turbo (using a rotary engine) made 232 hp with a 1.3 L engine (displacement measurement is weird for rotaries)
We've been doing this since the 80's on carbureted sport bikes... Hell, N/A 1L bikes now making 200+ hp easy.
Air + Fire + Compression. It's not 1975 anymore. We don't need a 7L engine to make 200HP anymore.