MECF_728x90_top

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
1 of 4 < >

We are extremely pleased to welcome Kerbeck Corvette as a “Featured Forum Vendor.”

Kerbeck Corvettes has been the # 1 Corvette sales dealership since 1994. We are fortunate and excited that they have joined our MECF family.
2 of 4 < >

Stay Tuned As Chazcron Works On His Latest Project, The ME IP/Dashboard! Not New, But 48 Wonderful High Resolution C8 Pictures

Stay Tuned As Chazcron Works On His Latest Project, The ME IP/Dashboard! Also, High Resolution C8 Pictures!

https://www.midenginecorvetteforum.c...f-the-interior

48 High Resolution C8 Pictures:

https://www.midenginecorvetteforum.c...8-spy-pictures
3 of 4 < >

Scheduled Software Maintenance: Tuesday, 8:00 PM

We have scheduled software maintenance and upgrades Tuesday (19th) @ 8:00 PM. While vBulletin always say not more than an hour, they have averaged 10 minutes in length. Thank you — as we continually are committed to having the best forum software available.
4 of 4 < >

Welcome Corvette Dream Giveway As Our Forum Founding Vendor!

We welcome an outstanding organization as a MECF vendor, one who has an amazing and such a.well deserved reputation for giving away staggering amounts of funds to very worthy organizations who help others.

https://www.dreamgiveaway.com/dg/corvette?promo=ME2019C
See more
See less

Z06 ME To Have This?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by TtiME View Post

    Who says it’s going to cost 150k? Ford manages to build one and put it in a 50k mustang! I think the thought is the Z06 will get the first FPC TT engine and it’ll be around 90-100k.
    A 90K FPC Corvette C8 would be would great. at 3.9 Liter or any Liter.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by SheepDog View Post

      A 90K FPC Corvette C8 would be would great. at 3.9 Liter or any Liter.
      I agree. I don’t see anything bigger than 4.2L. And like you said I’d still have realiability/longevity concerns. I personally was thinking the TT engines would be CPC and then they could/should offer a GS with a NA FPC engine and it would make a fantastic GT3 killer!

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by TtiME View Post

        I agree. I don’t see anything bigger than 4.2L. And like you said I’d still have realiability/longevity concerns. I personally was thinking the TT engines would be CPC and then they could/should offer a GS with a NA FPC engine and it would make a fantastic GT3 killer!
        You are on it.. A Naturally Aspirated FPC C8 would be consistent with the C5/C6 Z06 format [LS7]. As, it was before the C7 Z06 was made with the supercharger. But there are now folks who are fans of the supercharged Z06 format and not lovingly looking back upon the LS7 and natural aspiration. The LS 7 in the C6 Z06 was higher revved. The GT3 is a 9000 RPM welterweight champion screaming for a C8 challenger of kindred sprit.


        And too. The Porsche Boxer 4 and 6 engines are all flat plane crank shaft. The V8 flat plane crank is essentially a boxer 8 engine, with the two 4 cylinder banks positioned on a 90 degree instead of a 180 degree. Otherwise about the same. But the 90 angle saves space for packaging and has a few vibration riddles that must be addressed, that are not present in the 180 degree layout.
        Last edited by SheepDog; 03-13-2019, 10:11 AM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by SheepDog View Post

          You are on it.. A Naturally Aspirated FPC C8 would be consistent with the C5/C6 Z06 format [LS7]. As, it was before the C7 Z06 was made with the supercharger. But there are now folks who are fans of the supercharged Z06 format and not lovingly looking back upon the LS7 and natural aspiration. The LS 7 in the C6 Z06 was higher revved. The GT3 is a 9000 RPM welterweight champion screaming for a C8 challenger of kindred sprit.


          And too. The Porsche Boxer 4 and 6 engines are all flat plane crank shaft. The V8 flat plane crank is essentially a boxer 8 engine, with the two 4 cylinder banks positioned on a 90 degree instead of a 180 degree. Otherwise about the same. But the 90 angle saves space for packaging and has a few vibration riddles that must be addressed, that are not present in the 180 degree layout.
          The Ford flatplane crank is different in some ways from the traditional FPC.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by JB View Post
            I dont think gm will utilize a flat plane crank...but if they do then downsize the motor from cadillacs 4.2 liter to 3.9 liters.
            I think this is correct. The base LT2 engine is simply too large to make an FPC practical. But with continued rumors of a DOHC, twin turbo, high protein, gluten free, whiz-bang motor, I suppose it's possible that engine could have an FPC. If that car's going to start at $125K or more, and go head to head with European exotics, that might be something GM feels is worth doing.

            Originally posted by SheepDog View Post

            You are on it.. A Naturally Aspirated FPC C8 would be consistent with the C5/C6 Z06 format [LS7]. As, it was before the C7 Z06 was made with the supercharger. But there are now folks who are fans of the supercharged Z06 format and not lovingly looking back upon the LS7 and natural aspiration. The LS 7 in the C6 Z06 was higher revved. The GT3 is a 9000 RPM welterweight champion screaming for a C8 challenger of kindred sprit..
            But GM said the reason for supercharging the Z06 was that they couldn't get the HP they wanted and still meet current emissions and mileage requirements with an NA motor. And switching to an FPC isn't going to make that much difference in output. Especially if they need to reduce displacement to keep it in one piece. I think an FPC engine, if it appears at all, will be in the turbo, to provide high output from a small displacement motor.
            Last edited by meyerweb; 03-13-2019, 11:49 AM.
            SunKissed, my 2015 2LT, 7MT, Black over Daytona Sunrise Orange Metallic, Stingray convertible (One of about 40)

            Purchased 5/2/2015,
            27,000+ miles

            Proud member of the Old Dominion Corvette Club. Check us out http://www.olddominioncorvetteclub.org

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by JB View Post
              I dont think gm will utilize a flat plane crank...but if they do then downsize the motor from cadillacs 4.2 liter to 3.9 liters.
              What to make of the C8 Night Testing at Sebring video? The sound is like a FPCrank.

              Comment


              • #22
                After following the FPC discussion on the two threads, I'm wondering what the advantage is. It appears to have NVH issues, it's expensive, and the engine sound is not particularly desirable IMHO.
                Save the wave.

                Comment


                • #23
                  A flat plane engine is not more expensive to build. It’s just a different crankshaft, and cam, ( cams). it’s very easy to machine a flat plane crank. And the different cam is necessary for the different firing order. Manufacturing costs would be the same as a cross plane engine if the manufacturer chose to built it in mass.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    GM should buy Koenigsegg. He Could teach them a thing or two about building high performance engines.
                    The technology development in his latest creation is pretty impressive.
                    Last edited by Meldoon; 03-14-2019, 02:27 PM.
                    The least we can do is wave to each other

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Meldoon View Post
                      GM should buy Koenigsegg. He Could teach them a thing or two about building high performance engines.
                      The Chevrolet Indy V6 engine is a 2.2-litre Twin-turbocharged V6, developed and produced by Ilmor Engineering-Chevroletfor IndyCar Series. Chevrolet has been a highly-successful IndyCar Series engine supplier since 2012, scoring 33 IndyCar wins, 35 pole positions, 2 IndyCar Series driver's titles and 3 IndyCar Series manufacturer's titles. On November 12, 2010, Chevrolet confirmed their return to the IndyCar Series 2012 season after 6-year absence. They design, develop, and assemble the twin-turbo V6 Chevrolet IndyCar engine in partnership with Ilmor Engineering, and supply engines to A. J. Foyt Enterprises, Andretti Autosport, Dreyer & Reinbold Racing, Ed Carpenter Racing, Harding Racing, Juncos Racing, Lazier Partners Racing, and Team Penske teams.[1]

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        09/05/2017
                        • 72
                        The engine architecture of V8 machines

                        Powerful eight-cylinder engines have been as much a part of the Porsche story as the traditional at-six engine for decades. Porsche Engineering also develops V8 engines—for customer orders. The reasons for the popularity of this engine type are revealed by the fundamental properties of the engine architecture of the V8 machine.Panamera Turbo: 4.0-litre V8 biturbo engine, 2016, Porsche AGLuxury sedans and sports cars, SUVs and pickup trucks—in each of these vehicle categories, the eight-cylinder combustion engine in the V configuration enjoys an outstanding reputation. Depending on the use, it embodies either luxury and comfort or sportiness and emotion. The reason for the popularity of the V8 compared to other engine configurations is its fundamental advantages. The V8 is only slightly longer than an inline four-cylinder engine with the same cylinder spacing. The slight increase in required structural length is due to the offset of the two cylinder banks. So the V8 is also a promising option for hybrid drivetrains with an additional electric motor on the crankshaft flange, as the Porsche 918 Spyder demonstrates.

                        The distribution of the total displacement among many cylinders results in uniform torque output and thus smooth running. So in a four-stroke V8, there are four power strokes per crank-shaft revolution. Larger numbers of cylinders offer smoother running and therefore greater comfort, but their greater structural length and higher weight are drawbacks in terms of the vehicle’s architecture and the axle-load distribution. In sports cars, for example, this can be compensated for through a midengine configuration or, in the case of front engines, by resolutely shifting the ten- or twelve-cylinder engine towards the center of the vehicle. For drivers and passengers, however, this results in space constraints—which is not a viable route for luxury sedans. Here, the structural length of the engine is completely incorporated into the longitudinal geometry of the vehicle, which with a V12, for example, results in a longer wheelbase or overhang and thus disadvantages in terms of vehicle agility. Special designs such as the W12 compensate for this disadvantage of the classic V12, albeit with a higher degree of technical complexity. So the classic V8 represents a good compromise, offering small structural space requirements with a simple engine architecture, high power-to-weight ratio and extremely smooth running characteristics. The basics of V engines

                        Conventional V engines have a special characteristic: The two piston rods of the respective opposing cylinder pair connect to a shared crank pin of the crankshaft.


                        V motor 90 degree profile, Porsche Engineering, 2017, Porsche AG
                        V engine with 90° bank angle

                        The bank angle of the V is immaterial, because even with some engines with horizontal, opposing cylinders, two connecting rods connect to a shared crank pin. Engines such as that of the Porsche 917 are therefore grouped not with the at engines but with the V engines—albeit with a 180° bank angle. With the at engine characteristic of the Porsche 911, by contrast, the connecting rods of the opposing cylinder pairs run to separate crank pins offset from each other by 180°. For this reason, the at engine in modern architecture has more main crankshaft bearings than a comparable V engine. The usual number of main bearings today is:

                        > for V engines = (number of cylinders: 2) + 1
                        > for at engines = number of cylinders + 1

                        This in turn results in a further difference in the offset of the two cylinder banks: in a V engine, the bank offset is determined by the width of the connecting rod, while in a at engine it amounts to half the distance between cylinders. Bank angle

                        The bank angle of a V engine influences the engine height and width as well as the position of the center of gravity in the vertical axis. Ideally, in a V engine it is selected so as to produce an even ignition interval. For a four-stroke V8 engine, that means: 720-degree cycle angle, i.e. two crankshaft revolutions for a complete working cycle, divided by the number of cylinders (8) yield a 90° bank angle or a whole-number multiple thereof. Derivative with a trick up its sleeve: V6 engine

                        The usable construction space, or when vehicle platforms are offered with V engines with different numbers of cylinders, can necessitate deviations from this rule. One example of this is the V6 engine: to achieve a regular firing order, this four-stroke, six-cylinder engine requires a bank angle of 120°, which is associated with an unfavorably large structural width. Moreover, in most cases the mounting space for a V8 variant with a 90° bank angle is predetermined. The V6 is then also implemented with a 90° bank angle.


                        V6 split-pin-crankshaft, Porsche Engineering, 2017, Porsche AG
                        V6 split-pin-crankshaft

                        To compensate for the resulting irregular firing order, engineers fall back on a trick of sorts: the “incorrect” bank angle is compensated for through an additional crankpin offset on the crankshaft. This requires split-pin crankshafts or even flying arms (see figures to the right of page 50) with an angle offset making up the difference. For a V6 with a bank angle of 90°, the requisite angle offset is then 30°.


                        V6 crankshaft with flying arms, Porsche Engineering, 2017, Porsche AG
                        V6 crankshaft with flying arms

                        Design of the crankshaft

                        In the basic design of a V8 engine, designers have another important bit of room for maneuver: the configuration of the crank throws on the crankshaft. This has a crucial influence on the principal characteristics of the engine—whether sporty/aggressive or with comfort-focused smoothness and low vibrations.

                        The decision regarding the arrangement of the crank throws is shaped by the dichotomy between maximum power potential and optimal balancing of the free inertia forces and torques. Due to the kinematic coupling in the crankshaft drive, the inertial forces are produced by the oscillating motion of the piston and connecting rod masses. Depending on whether these inertial forces are produced one or two times per crankshaft revolution—for example through the upward or downward motion of the piston—we speak of primary and secondary forces in relation to the engine speed. If for the free inertial forces there is also a moment arm with respect to the engine center, this produces free inertia torques.

                        As the engine speed rises, free inertial forces and/or torques are felt in the form of increased vibration, which, particularly as primary and secondary forces, are perceived as unpleasant and can only be partially mitigated through the engine mounts. For the most part, conventional V8 engines feature one of two crank variants: the “ at-plane” crankshaft in which all crank pins are on a single plane, and the “cross- plane” crankshaft, in which the crank pins of the four cylinder pairs are arranged at 90° angles to each other.


                        Cross-plane V8 crankshaft, Porsche Engineering, 2017, Porsche AG
                        Cross-plane V8 crankshaft

                        Flat-plane V8 crankshaft, Porsche Engineering, 2017, Porsche AG
                        Flat-plane V8 crankshaft

                        Emotional sound: cross-plane V8

                        One typical feature of the cross-plane V8 engine is the characteristic sound, defined by the emotional sound often referred to as “burbling.” What sounds pleasant for enthusiasts, however, impacts the gas exchange in the engine. However, an efficient gas cycle is a fundamental prerequisite for the optimal utilization of the displacement in terms of cylinder charge and volumetric efficiency and therefore the potential output. The gas cycle can be impeded by two effects:

                        > flow resistance in the inlet and exhaust path 

                        > incomplete gas exchange and thus residual gas in the cylinder 


                        In gasoline-powered engines, residual gas also promotes a tendency toward hard, explosive combustion after ignition—i.e. knocking. Persistent knocking leads inexorably to piston damage. In order to prevent this under any circumstances, a knock control system has to intervene—but then the ignition cannot take place at the thermodynamically optimal time, which in turn leads to compromised thermal efficiency. 


                        A V8 engine with a cross-plane crankshaft experiences this problem in a particularly pronounced form. In spite of the generally even ring order in the engine as a whole, with a 90° bank angle there is still an uneven ring order in each cylinder bank. Two cylinders per bank always fire in direct succession (90° ignition interval). What that means in concrete terms is that the exhaust pressure pulse of the subsequent cylinder already occurs while the exhaust valves of the previously ignited cylinder are still open. As a result, exhaust is pushed back into these cylinders, which in turn adversely affects the quality of the gas cycle. Porsche Engineering has broken new ground

                        In practice, heretofore this disadvantage could only be countervailed through greater complexity: for example, through accordingly great lengths of the individual exhaust manifold pipes—although here the limits are generally defined by the vehicle package—or through cross-bank exhaust manifolds for V engines in which the exhaust side is in the V angle. As part of a current V8 engine project, Porsche Engineering has now broken new ground in this context. With specific control times for each individual cylinder, the residual gas problem can be eliminated with minimal effort. This was demonstrated in impressive fashion both in the simulation and on the engine test bench.

                        The cross-plane V8 engine typically earns high marks in two other important categories: smoothness and low vibrations. In terms of free inertial forces and torques, the cross-plane configuration is ideal. While there is a remaining primary free inertial torque, this can be relatively easily counteracted through balancing masses on the outer counterweights of the crankshaft. The result is perfect balance. The double four-cylinder: at-plane V8

                        The crankshaft for the at-plane V8 engine looks like that of an inline four-cylinder engine—aside from the wide crank pins, which in a V have two connecting rods. The similarity to a four-cylinder is no coincidence. The at-plane V8 embodies the original idea that led to the development of V8 engines, i.e. combining two inline four-cylinder engines in an angled configuration. And this is what gives rise to the fundamental advantages and drawbacks of this configuration. The secondary free inertial forces of the four-cylinder are retained and combine vectorially in the V configuration. The gas cycle, on the other hand, is considerably more harmonious. The ring in a at-plane V8 jumps from one cylinder bank to the other, which eliminates the residual gas problem of the cross-plane V8. The even, alternating expulsion of the exhaust also produces a completely unique engine sound that sounds noticeably like that of two inline four-cylinder engines—penetrating and aggressive. Putting all of these characteristics together, the at-plane V8 suggests itself primarily for use in high-performance sports cars such as the 918 Spyder. Differing ring orders depending on the manufacturer

                        While the firing order determines the crankshaft rotation angle traveled between the ignition of two cylinders, the firing order defines the unique sequence of the cylinders in succession. As fixed geometric variables, the bank and crank angles only allow certain orders. The respective configuration defines which pistons reach their top dead center. The firing orders of flat- and cross-plane engines therefore differ in principle. Nearly all modern flat-plane V8 engines fire in identical sequences; in cross-plane V8 engines, by contrast, one generally finds manufacturer-specific firing orders. This takes into account a circumstance that can lead to slight confusion: worldwide there are different definitions as to which cylinder is counted first and how the other combustion chambers are numbered. This would seem to result in different firing orders. Removing the effects from the different cylinder counting methods, the variance in firing orders drops markedly.

                        If one begins the cylinder count in each case with cylinder 1 according to DIN 73021, there are a total of eight theoretically possible ring orders for each rotational direction in a at-plane V8. With a cross-plane engine, the total is 16, as here the angle position of the center crank pin is interchangeable. However, not every theoretically possible ring order is implemented in reality. The objective is always the best-possible compromise between the following criteria:

                        > Gas cycle 

                        > Stress on the main crankshaft bearings 

                        > Vibration stimulation of the crankshaft drive through deformation of the crankshaft under loads 

                        > Rotational irregularities 


                        Porsche Engineering carefully examined the question of the optimal ring order for both at-plane and cross-plane V8 engines. Nearly all at-plane engines reidentically, with alternation between banks always a possibility even with a deviating ring order. The result for cross-plane variants was likewise no surprise: particularly with a focus on maximum robustness of the crankshaft bearings, the ring order 1-3-7- 2-6-5-4-8 is the best choice in view of all characteristics — which is the ring order for all Porsche cross-plane V8 engines since the 928. Even so, the other implemented ring orders also have their justifications; here the objectives of the manufacturers in terms of their conceptual decision do vary. The results of the analysis also revealed another interesting point: There are certain ring orders that have never been implemented in reality but which also demonstrate exceptional balance in the fulfillment of the specified objective criteria.


                        Crank Variants, Porsche Engineering, 2017, Porsche AG
                        Theoretically possible firing orders for a given rotational direction in a cross-plane V8

                        One thing is clear in any case: for all the competition between different drive technologies for future mobility concepts, the V8 will continue to have its place under the hoods of premium vehicles—not only as an icon of past glory, but due to the sum total of its technical characteristics.

                        Info

                        Text first published in the Porsche Engineering Magazin 1/2017.
                        The least we can do is wave to each other

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          https://jalopnik.com/its-time-you-kn...nes-1825246413
                          The least we can do is wave to each other

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Thank you. I was unaware of that difference and I have a WRX.
                            So many questions about the ME right now, but the answers are nicely, though slowly, coming out.

                            Excited owners of a 2015 Z06. Lifetime, annual contributors, and 20 year members of NCM. Our 2020 ME C8 Corvette is next.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by SheepDog View Post

                              What to make of the C8 Night Testing at Sebring video? The sound is like a FPCrank.
                              The current C7.R racecars don't use the same engine as the production car. No reason to think the C8.R will, either.
                              SunKissed, my 2015 2LT, 7MT, Black over Daytona Sunrise Orange Metallic, Stingray convertible (One of about 40)

                              Purchased 5/2/2015,
                              27,000+ miles

                              Proud member of the Old Dominion Corvette Club. Check us out http://www.olddominioncorvetteclub.org

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Meldoon View Post
                                GM should buy Koenigsegg. He Could teach them a thing or two about building high performance engines.
                                The technology development in his latest creation is pretty impressive.
                                Putting high tech in your car is easier when you can sell them for $1 to $2 million dollars each.
                                SunKissed, my 2015 2LT, 7MT, Black over Daytona Sunrise Orange Metallic, Stingray convertible (One of about 40)

                                Purchased 5/2/2015,
                                27,000+ miles

                                Proud member of the Old Dominion Corvette Club. Check us out http://www.olddominioncorvetteclub.org

                                Comment

                                MECF_728x90_bottom

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X