Quote:
Originally Posted by chernaudi
You do seem to be forgetting to a degree that's why cars with small engines run turbochargers or superchargers. They're torque multipliers. That's why Audi had some big advantages in the R8 LMP900 days, is that they were the only ones with a forced induction engine that worked well. You don't get a 3.6 liter V8 to make the torque of a big block V8 and red line at 7000 rpm by it being a NA engine.
The problem with the 2.0 four bangers, though, is can they handle the boost to get the power and torque needed. Toyota managed it in the IMSA GTP days, but they destroyed a lot of engines and at least one or two engine dynos to do it. So far, Mazda hasn't.
I do think that a four cylinder is a poor choice for endurance racing, but not for power or torque reasons if forced induction. I think that most four cylinders have rigidity issues that hamper their durability in high boost applications. A V block is much more torsionally strong. That's why Porsche's four banger in the 919 is a V4. That's why Audi went with a V6 in the R18 series, as well as a V8 in the R8, a V12 in the R10, and a V10 in the R15. All Toyota LMP engines have been V engines, be it V8s or the current V6 family.
Not to mention that V engines can be easily designed to be stress mounted to the cars tub. Not of huge importance in DPI (where stock block engines are the common rule), but even in a semi-stressed mount, I feel that a V engine still has some advantages. Only VAG designed a successful stress mounted inline four for their F3 cars, and that was designed by Audi engine man Ulrich Baretzky. And no one's figured out how they did it.
|
Chernaidi, please rest assured I'm not forgetting anything so basic and trivial, as I design high-performance engines for a living for the past 20 years, as a guide, gone are the days that I take an engine design lecture from the majority of people, for sure there are a minority that know a bit more than me, as nobody knows everything, but I dont see them anywhere on this forum ;-)