Abe_Froman

iTrader: (5)

These questions have puzzled me for what seems like my whole life. So please answer what you can, and provide whatever information you may have.

Why did they make cars with such massive engines back then? Was there any point to a 8 liter V8 besides it being loud and producing more power? Did cars of the old days have the same horsepower to liter ratio that they do today? Did these massive engines have a much greater life span then today's 4 cylinder cars? Did older cars have a very hard time getting traction due to the face that they lacked the techology back then? How come cars of the old days could handle ridiculous amounts of boost? Did they use better/stronger materials then they do today? Was forced induction used in cars more back then, or now? How do modern cars fair up against them?

Costco

Massive engines = people love power and torque, and they still do. Back then it was kinda hard to make any power, especially in a smaller engine. Plus the cars were all huge, and quite heavy. Also, in the mid 1900's there were very little/no restrictions or requirements for engines to be environmentally friendly, or to get a certain MPG. Plus, gas was cheap as hell, so no one cared anyway.

Horsepower/liter ratio = meaningless statistic. Absolutely useless unless it's for a displacement-limited racing class, and even then rotaries will probably have the best HP/liter.

Life spans = no, the machining and casting processes back then weren't even close to being as precise as they are these days. Cars these days typically have very few actual engine problems and are much better when it comes to longevity, you don't see any new cars puffing out smoke or backfiring anymore (typically)

Traction = tire technology back then sucked balls, period.

Ridiculous amounts of boost = you mean with some of the 80's and 90's factory turbocharged cars? That's because a lot of the factory turbocharged engines (3S-GTE, 2JZ-GTE, 4G63, VG30DETT, RB-series, etc.) were iron blocks. Iron is simply denser than aluminum, so for a given thickness it'll be stronger, but obviously heavier.

PortlandRL

Old cars were simply not as efficient so in order to produce sufficient (or excessive) power, they needed to be HUGE to overcome the inherent flaws in their design and the size of the vehicles they were burdened with carrying. Also they had to deal with carburetors which are a very inefficient fuel delivery system. My 2010 Santa Fe has a 3.5 liter V6 which is a 213 cubic inch engine but it still produces 276 horsepower and gets 19 to 20 mpg in the city. Combine today's computerized fuel injection, advanced timing and valve control as well as precision machining, the result is a far superior engine.

By contrast, a family friend of ours has a 1966 Ford Galaxie with the 302 cubic inch (5.0 liter) V8 but it only makes 220 horsepower and gets maybe 10 mpg in the city. There's no denying the Galaxie is the more stylish car but it can't come close to touching modern designs for power and efficiency.

NJ SHAWD

There is nothing better than the sound of a V8 with a good exhaust and a lumpy idle.

http://www.freesound.org/samplesViewSingle.php?id=49988

teranfon

Different times. Different ideas.

First off, today's car are for the most part better than their counterparts of forty years ago. They're much safer, provide better fuel economy, more comfortable, and are tremendously efficient. Back then, the technology we have today was never even imagined. Engines had to be of large displacement, relying on compression and high lift cams of long duration to make horsepower. These engines were for the most part inefficient however, and would never come close to the emission standards we have today. Today, it's the application of electronics more than anything that allow engines to achieve their horsepower ratings and to meet current emissions. Today's engines don't necessarily need to be large displacement to make good horsepower and torque ratings. Electronics are also conducive to any type for forced induction. The newer engines are also machined to much closer tolerances than ever before, resulting of shorter break in periods and increased longevity.

But............... the engines of yesteryear were oh so wonderful. A solid lifter Ford FE shoving you back in your seat is a beautiful thing. A 396 Chevrolet at full wail is an experience you never forget. The frenzied idle of a Ford solid lifter 302 or pull of a Chevrolet LS5 need to be experienced firsthand. Many high performance engines of yesteryear made lots of power, but this power was achieved by very simple means. More displacement and more compression. More cam and more induction. More fuel and freer flowing exhaust. More of everything. Unfortunately, however, it comes to a point where more of everything is no longer efficient or even practical.

Traction? There wasn't any back then. There certainly wasn't any traction control, but the biggest hindrance was tires. Back then bias-ply tires were the norm, and often of ridiculously tiny widths. It wasn't uncommon for domestic performance cars of the sixties to run on fourteen inch rims with diameters of 5-6 inches. The actual tire width was often less than six inches. And as surprising as it seems, many of these cars were built with open differentials. No limited slips. Imagine having a car weighing about 3500-3800 pounds with 450 ft/lbs of torque at a relatively low 2500 rpm. Now imagine trying to put that power down with one puny little bias ply tire. You went nowhere. A Honda Accord is quicker through an intersection.

In regards to boost, most older cars used supercharging if forced induction was desired. Supercharging wasn't really all that popular back then, and is actually more common today with the advent and application of electronics. Supercharged engines were actually fairly limited to what boost they could run and tended to run much better in all out competition compared to everyday drivers. Keep in mind the high compression of yesteryear's performance engines wasn't really all that friendly to forced induction either. Detonation was always a concern back then, but electronic monitoring and controls of today's engines alleviates much of these concerns. As such, forced induction is far more common and practical than it was years ago. Today's smaller displacement engines with either super or turbocharging can easily match the horsepower ratings of their earlier big-block counterparts. And use far less fuel and are much easier to live with.

In short, we've come a long way over the years. I like much of a lot of the newer stuff, but the older cars and engines have a personality all their own. Many new cars can make even the most average driver experience speeds and handling characteristics thought to be impossible even a few short years ago. On the flip side, some feel that today's cars are nothing more than appliances, being produced by accountants and bean counters. To some extent I agree. I'll take an Accord over an American big block for a daily driver, but for the times when I really want to make the earth move, I'll drive one of my old beasts. And I'll undoubtedly laugh like an idiot when I lay two black, beautiful strips on the asphalt or smile when I smell unburned fuel running passing through the exhaust of an overlapping camshaft.


Terry

Brandon24pdx

Older engines were less efficient and not as well designed, so they had to be bigger to make decent power. That said, there is definitely an upper limit to how efficient gasoline burning piston engines can be and I think we're near it now. The major leaps in efficiency will continue to involve gasoline-electric hybrid and EV technology.

Costco

I kinda wish I was around more of the older V8s. Love the lumpy idle as mentioned, nothing like a big cam to get the chugga-chugga-chugga lope sound

But while we're on the topic of V8s and superchargers, here's one of my favorite sounds...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD_D3jHIE8k

I must have replayed that clip like 5 times. I never get tired of that sound, and really, nothing gives me the goosebumps like sitting in a car with a big V8 or with big power, and hearing and feeling it start up and shudder.

65 Fury Convert

Cars of the past were built with what technology had to offer at the time. Todays cars are run by powerful computers that manage practically every element of the engine, not to mention the entire drivetrain. Transmissions are better as well - 6, 7, even 8 speeds? Only in an automotive engineers dreams back then and only feasable with todays lighter and stronger metals and electronic controls. But powerful computers not only help manage the engine and drivetrain, they help design cars better as well. What would have taken months to design in the past, computers can do the same immediately. This has aided the design of engines, suspensions, making the vehicles structures stiffer and lighter, not to mention making tire design better. In the past - especially the way past like pre-90's, cars didn't benefit from any of todays computer technology and the engines were choked by heavy emissions controls like air pumps and EGR's and restrictive exhausts. No doubt about we are living in a golden age of vehicle design - let's enjoy it while we can.

majin ssj eric

I thought he was talking about even earlier engines like the crazy 1920's and 30's V16's etc....

I hate cars

I've only got a few seconds before I leave for work....

Compression ratios are rising today. Modern cars run higher compression on average than the cars of the '60s. My stock TL is running 11:1. That's higher than the majority of the '60s cars.

The American public loves torque. I prefer a torquey car to a high revving car for daily transportation. Most were tuned to deliver a ton of low end torque while sacraficing top end hp.

Got to go but I'll be back lol.

Will Y.

Larger engines were necessary to produce more torque; the engines were much less efficient at producing power then.
Not even close-- modern engines produce more HP per liter.
The engines then (massive or not) generally had less of a life span, actually, as technology in materials and design advanced.
Yes-- tech on both the car and tire rubber.

What's a "ridiculous" amount of boost? What engine are you referencing? Are you looking at psi or atmospheres?
Factory builds are generally better now, and I think most factory setups are at a higher psi now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by akplaya92

How do modern cars fair up against them?

Modern performance cars are far superior in performance to older OEM performance cars in every metric.

GIBSON6594

We've got better computers now

I hate cars

There have been several advances that contribute to engine life.

Clearances have remained about the same since the old days but tolerances have become tighter.

Fuel injecton is responsible for a huge part of the added reliability and longevity.

Modern oils are the other part.

As for older engines taking more boost.... The GNX ran about 15psi but would spike upwards of 17psi in first gear. It also had an 8:1 compression ratio. I run 29psi on mostly stock internals now but I've run up to 33psi on the factory stock engine before.

The difference is manufacturers try and push the compression ratio for that added mpg so many modern cars don't run as much boost as they used to. Many don't have to because of better head designs and other influences.

In fact, there was a time when the first gasoline engines had no compression.

Manufacturers of the '60s could have gotten the same hp/L out of the old engines, they knew how to do it. The problem is they would not have been very streetable. When you get into big power with a carbureted setup, it gets harder and harder to have good idle/part throttle response and top end hp without surging, bucking, hesitation, etc. Cam and head technology has improved so you can have decent low end and high end. Just about every manufacturer uses some form of variable valve lift and timing now. It gives good drivability and emissions along with top end power.

The other thing to remember is traction. There was none. Most of the high 13 second cars would have been high 12 second cars with modern tires on them.

Another plus is for the enthusiast there was a ton of power to be gained from simple mods. Most of the older cars were not so high strung from the factory and you could get huge gains from simple bolt-ons.

I have to disagree about the 6-9 speed autos being better than the old 2-4 speeds. There are some exceptions but there's no real modern equivalent to a TH400 except for some diesel offerings and some of Mercedes offerings. Typically more speeds equals more heat and less torque capacity. This is a blanket statement of course but it's mostly true.

The extra gears are there for fuel economy but generally will not get the car down the road any quicker and sometimes slower. The manufacturer can run a tighter torque convertor but keep the engine in it's most efficient range.

Don't get too caught up on peak hp. Most of the old cars had much more power under the curve. They were more laid back to drive. There was power everywhere on the tach. One thing I hate about my TL is just to slowly pass a car in traffic it has to downshift a couple gears. I can lug my GN around at 1,500rpm and have more passing power. You can take an old car and run it against a new car that might out run it in a drag race but the old car will still probably feel quicker during normal driving.

The new techonology is great in every way but I prefer it applied to lots of displacement and boost.

AMUA6

iTrader: (7)

OP is this for a project or something?