Engine size and power

drivetrain tolerances and reliability. this question comes up every day. in layman's terms, you can take a Z06 to 80k miles without any problems but you'd have to rebuild the jag twice in that same amount of time.

File: The guy i wish would've made the new GT.png (1MB, 1481x820px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1481x820px

>>17727728
>why would u not have smaller engines producing the same HP?
>Wouldnt fuel economy increase?

Ford probably thought the same thing with the new """GT""" and they got blown waaaay the fuck out on that deal.
>11 mpg

I suppose you could also ask why Porsche and Ferrari didn't just boost a V6 up to 800 and 900 HP instead of the heavy V8/V12 Hybrid setup they currently have.

>>17727728
if you have a smaller engine or an engine with fewer cylinders, you have to compensate with higher boost, higher compression, and likely some type of more complicated camshaft(s) and valve design. You end up with more moving parts, and higher loads on the engine from added boost and higher compression.

Big american V8s have always had lower than necessary compression which means while they generate less power than they could, they have much lower engine stresses which improves the longevity of the engine.

>>17727865
>>17727796
>>17727742
Thanks guys. Appreciate the answers. :)

Twin turbo.
Vs.
Not twin turbo

That is why. Twin turbo a 6.2L. Absolute madman machine

Power is fuel and air. turbos push in more air so you can burn more fuel and get more power. the gas savings for small turbo engines are negated everytime you stomp on it.

Better question - why is the XJ220 so fucking beautiful?

>>17727728
Americans can barely get 130hp from a 2.5l I4, top kek.

Meanwhile in Europe we drive turbocharged 1.2l shitboxes giving out 125bhp

>>17729403
Where are you getting that info? I drive a 2.2 i4 that is rated for 140hp and the car is from 2002

>>17729403
You seem to be bragging that you're driving 125hp when Americans daily 400+hp