gearhead_318

iTrader: (1)

-http://jalopnik.com/5727526/watch-a-tesla-roadster-get-charged-wirelessly

IcantDo55

iTrader: (11)

The 3.9L is a Jag motor, not Fords.

gearhead_318

iTrader: (1)

True.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_...ne#AJ30.2FAJ35

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Saw this today on I-5:





I LOLed at the license plate.

JasonC SBB

hp/L isn't all that.

hp/lb of engine weight, mpg, and hp per engine outside dimensions are the more important metrics.

TrickerZ

iTrader: (6)

I've never understood the obsession with wireless charging. Is it really that hard to plug something in? I'd be happy with a parking spot that had a plug. I can take the extra 30 secs to plug it in. I still wonder how safe it is, too. That's a serious magnetic field.

I like that plate on the Tesla, too. If I had kids to sell, I'd sell them all for one of those cars. Got a close look at one in Paris and all I heard from it was the chirp of the tires when it took off at a light.

oilstain

I was going to ask: newfangledness vs LSness, which one is smaller on the outside?

y8s

iTrader: (8)

I'm here to represent lazy.

Plus, people forget stuff is plugged in. There is a reason someone invented the breakaway gas station hose and those people have only shoved something in a hole a few minutes prior.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Inductive charging has been tried. Anybody remember the GM EV1? That one only had to operate over a gap of a few mm, and it was still sufficiently inefficient that it was abandoned.

There's a reason that all modern EVs use conductive chargers.

On topic: To oilstain's point, new hotness > old and busted.

JasonC SBB

Comparing to the previous gen BMW M5 V8 which has the same power, at higher RPM with less displacement, the vette motor is lighter, fits in a smaller box, and has a lower CG due to the smaller heads.

The vette has higher MPG, but that's an unfair comparo because the vette is lighter and has a smaller frontal area. Engine BSFC would be a better comparison than in-car .MPG

JasonC SBB

The reason the Euros developed small displacement engines is that they got taxed on it. That's a bit bullshitty bec if you want to tax mpg you tax mpg, not displacement.

yank

iTrader: (1)

Damn. this looks pretty dope. I go to school in Bowling Green KY and its typical for Mechanical Engineering students to get internships at the corvette plant so im sure ill be hearing more about this. I wonder how big the block is... who wants to swap it in their miata? lol

richyvrlimited

iTrader: (1)

We're taxed on neither in the UK.

New cars are taxed on emissions at the tailpipe. So a 4litre SUV that's also a hybrid and creates **** all emissions at the 'test centre' but real world pumps out tonns of the stuff pays little to no tax, and is also exempt in any bullshit congestion charges.

Whereas the average Joe's 1.8litre Ford Mondeo pays far far more.

Bonkers

elesjuan

iTrader: (11)

Still stand by my previous comment. Power for Power, Torque for Torque I've yet to see ANY of these small displacement high wound engines get better mileage than a larger displacement engine at the same power level.

I'm not an automotive engineer, that is obvious. What I know about this subject is from my own research and observations. While I can't prove it with the numbers, I believe its pretty safe to assume a vehicle that gets poor mileage will likely also have a larger so-called hydrocarbon emission than a vehicle with similar power and better mileage. Would I be correct in that assumption?

Here is a great example:

2011 F458 Italia:
3274 Pounds (wet)
178.2" Long
76.3" Wide
47.8" High

4.5 Liter V8
562hp @ 9000rpm / 398lb tq @ 6000rpm
0-60 ~3.4s
17.2mpg
20.6mpg

2011 Corvette Z-06
3350# (wet)
174.6" Long
72.6" Wide
49.1" High

6.2 Liter V8
638hp @ 6500rpm / 595lb tq @ 3800rpm
0-60 ~3.5s
14mpg
20mpg

The two cars are roughly the same size, weight, and similar aerodynamics. With more than 2 liters larger engine, very similar power output and a true manual transmission the vette gets basically the same fuel mileage as the tiny high wound Ferrari engine. The vette is even supercharged, while it helps VE out it likely has a negative impact on the economy of the engine also. Ferrari uses 4 cams, at least 4 valves per cylinder, direct injection, and cost about $100,000 more than the Chevrolet.

Sound of the 458 vs the 6.2 liter LS9? Admittedly, That would be a really tough choice. When it came to the gearbox between the two cars though, Vette no questions. I hate flappy paddle gearboxes.

hustler

iTrader: (6)

SBC > unshowered Euro poseurs

fooger03

iTrader: (2)

I LOLed at your LOLstica

pusha

iTrader: (5)

you cited the ZR1's #s, not the Z06's.

richyvrlimited

iTrader: (1)

4.5l engine is tiny now?

fooger03

iTrader: (2)

Who wants to bet that the Ferrari isn't designed with a "freeway fuel sipping" gear ratio? Something tells me it was designed for performance without compromise.

The highway gear in a Corvette doesn't even begin to comprehend the definition of "performance".

elesjuan

iTrader: (11)

The article stated they were attempting to emulate smaller displacement V8 engines from the euro market. And considering you can get a 7 liter small block in a Vette, Yes, 4.5 liters is small in comparison.

You're correct. I was going to use the Z06 numbers but changed my mind because of power ratings and forgot to change the label to ZR1.

You're right. The 2 cars have different gear ratios and completely different gearboxes. The Vette has a 6 speed manual while the F458 has a 7 speed automatic flappy paddle shifter gearbox. Notice the FIVE-to-ONE final drive and might bit steeper ratios on the Italia, yet their acceleration numbers are VERY similar. I'd be willing to bet the corvette would out accelerate 90% of the cars on american roadways in top gear starting at 70mph. Too lazy to do the math but it'd be a safe bet. Also take into consideration the Ferrari makes peak torque of 398lb tq @ 6000rpm while the vette makes 595lb tq @ 3800rpm. Sorry to tell the honda fanbois this, but TORQUE MATTERS. An engine with low torque spins to oblivion to make any power, therefor has VERY low gear ratios.

ZR1:

1st Gear Ratio 2.29:1
2nd Gear Ratio 1.61:1
3rd Gear Ratio 1.21:1
4th Gear Ratio 1:1
5th Gear Ratio 0.81:1
6th Gear Ratio 0.67:1
Final Drive 3.42:1

F458:

First Gear Ratio 3.08
Second Gear Ratio 2.19
Third Gear Ratio 1.63
Fourth Gear Ratio 1.29
Fifth Gear Ratio 1.03
Sixth Gear Ratio 0.84
Seventh Gear Ratio 0.69
Final Drive Axle Ratio 5.14


I'm simply trying to prove my point, which is also something I've had personal experience with. Small displacement forced induction engines get fewer mpg than similar (or higher power) engines which are much larger in displacement. My argument is based on the assumption (which I still feel is safe) lower emissions come from better economy of the engine.