I was just wondering that if a inline six can produce alot of power wy not a inline eight? I mean inline six's are used in the Toyata Supra and the Nissan Skyline,which are pretty fast and defientaly the Sklyline.

Just a crazy idea though.

 

Not too crazy. Before Henry Ford found a way to cast a single piece V8 all high performance cars had straight eights. They also have inherently less vibrations as well.

 

you can say that about a lot of engines today. Honda has a 220 hp 2.0L 4 without turbo/super, imagine what a 8 cylinder turbo chraged version would put out? What about Subaru's 220 hp Flat 4? There seems to be an abundance of high performance 4 cylinder engines out there. Automotive manufactueres are getting smarter and cheaper. We would have some crazy engines today if we had the some advancement in technology but no emmisions laws and unlimited fuel supply.

 

I'd say packaging has a LOT to do with it. Imagine cramming a straight eight under the short hoods of most cars and trucks today .

------------------
1990 IROC 350
Mods: Too busy trying to make it run right to mod it.
Airfoil, Dynomax cat-back, MSD coil, 180 t-stat, Bald Eagle tires,
Hypertech fan switch, Accel 23# injectors, Holley AFPR, ported plenum,
Ported Daytona Yellow stock base, Moroso valve covers, other stuff,
Ruger P95DC, hot wife, new oil filter, thick rubber floormats, no cats.
18.0 @ 85MPH since I'm one big-a$$ MF
"It's better to have and not need than to need and not have."

 

even 6cyls have a tough time in todays bodystyles. Look at the new M3. The motor is tilted at about a 20degree angle. The entire oiling system had to be redesigned to account for that.

 

I know that packaging would be a big problem, but most vehicles today have the engine so far under the cowel that you have to take the body off to get the engine out anyway. A small displacement Straight 8 would probably fit, and what an advertising tool. The exotic appeal alone would sell itself. Now imagine a turbo or super on that baby. You couldn't keep 'em in show rooms. It'd be the same result as that 9000 RPM 2.0. Dealers are naming their price and people are shelling it out.

 

I would have liked to see some of the technology developed for motorcycles make into the automotive world. Some of the Jap manufacturers are doing this, but, the americans don't seem to want to jump on the band wagon.

GM did experiment with 4 valve engines, but, the cost was outrageous. (now you can get one corvette for the price of two!!!!!) The ZR-1 was a valiant effort, but, for the amount of money you had to crank out, you did not get a proportional amount of performance. (300 and some odd hp for about 30K. Not even thinking about being good in my book..... barely more than the standard engine.) The Berretta GTU was another misadventure. They are still not able to get that car to stop eating head gaskets.....

Motorcycles today, can get more than 100 horsepower per liter from a N/A engine. Now wouldn't you love to see a 570 HP 350 from the factory????? Don't hold your breath....
(and lets not forget the 14000RPM redlines....)

Oh well. Life goes on.....

 

That brings me to a point Ive been thinking about recently. Does it seem like Chevy hasn't put more than about $10 to $15 in research and development over the last 50 years? All of the emissions devices etc seemed just tacked on, rather than integrated, and while they may never be more than angry lawnmowers stock Jap non turbo 4s can kill a stock v8 fbody. This doesnt seem right.

 

Just had another crackhead idea..

Since most of the cars are front wheel drive,why not have a straight 8 front wheel drive car. Of course the roads will have to change because of the width of the cars. Now thats is crazy!!!

 

There is a trade-off in design between the number of cylinders, and the size of each one. It has to do with thermal efficiency (ratio of volume to surface area) on one hand, and the speed of sound on the other (the time it takes for the air molecules at the top of the cylinder to "know" what the piston at the bottom is doing). That, as much as packaging, is why you don't see any 5 liter 6-cylinders, or 3-liter V8s. There are some other issues as well; look at the size and weight of a straight-8 crank compared to a V8 for instance, or the length of the intake runners on any in-line motor, and their variation from one cylinder to another.

And as far as packaging goes, look under the hood of a Cadillac sometime, with a transverse-mounted V8. Then think of what that would look like with a straight 8.

Whatever perceived advantages those other engines might have compared to a Chevy V8, they don't come from the cylinders being in-line rather than in a V.

------------------
"So many Mustangs, so little time..."
ICON Motorsports

 

Us americans are kind of stuck in our ways...but i wouldnt want it any other way!
DOWN WITH RICE!!

 

I believe the circa 1960's Jaguar XKE series had inline 12 cylinders!!! Although the cylinder bores were quite small compared to a typical V8.

 

I dont think you get the point. The engineers in japan cooking this stuff up are not ricers. People in the states who put stickers and crap on civics are ricers. Give a little credit to the good folks in Japan and Europe. Im sure those engineers would love to pump out 8s and 12s if they could but economics gets in the way. Instead of frowning on everything thats not American maybe you should learn from it. And for anyone who thinks GM hasn't done any research, look under the hood of a new Caddy. The Northstar put out ~300hp and its just tuned for a luxury car. It has so much potential. If you keep on playing with small block chevys while the rest of the world is pumping out new designs, dont be surprised that some Japanese or German 4 cylinder starts putting out 300 hp.

 

ya, but the more HP those put out then the less torque there gonna have.


------------------
88' GTA 350 MODS---> air foil, K&N, Shift Kit, 180* therm, TB bypass

 

You wont need much torque if the car wieghs 2500 lbs. But yes, there is a torque trade off.