JerryU

This Video is what I sent a friend who asked what the advantage was of the 4 valves/cylinder he got in his new car were over two. He is very analytical but only a PhD chemical researcher so we won’t hold the question against him!

He did the calculation and quickly saw two small valves in the same space had less not more area. Yep area is proportional to diameter squared. But it’s not the diameter where air flows, it’s the circumference for a given lift. Circumference is proportional to diameter. The Video shows why the flow more!

]
PS: There are those who still think the World is crazy with small cid engines! Granted my Explanation of cylinder and head area exposed to combustion and exhaust gases is not the only reason for the V4 mode having better mpg in a LT1 but where else does that ~30% wasted thermal energy come from!

In fact I have an excellent example with heating in my 502 cid engine. But the reference I’ll quote takes space. I’ll try to condense as it is interesting. But now at the airport and it will have to wait until I return.

Warp Factor

No one is denying that four valves have the potential to flow more than two. The question is why having four valves is an improvement, if two valves are meeting the airflow needs of the engine, while saving weight, space and complexity?

The reality is that the two-valve LT5 pushrod engine makes more power than the Ford GT four-valve overhead cam engine, and gets better fuel economy to boot!

JerryU

^^

With the small cid engine that will be ideal with a short duration KERS like ZF has in a DCT need 4 for max power when desired.

Suspect the hybrid they let Andy Pilgrim “leak” will be driving the front wheels in a C8 will also be short duration with a small battery not like a Prius!

Warp Factor

And KERS would be no less useful in a larger CID engine.
But you still haven't explained why the larger two-valve single-cam engine in the ZR1 has both more power and better fuel economy than the Ford GT V-6.

jefnvk

What are those reasons in F1? I don't really understand how what is being done in a heavily regulated racing series which uses the pinnacle of technology (and rules to keep it from being a free for all money spend in R&D) correlates with mass produced road cars. I could equally point at NASCAR and use that to bolster pushrod V8s being the best engine choice.

As far as the engine tax thing, yes in the EU they are getting away from engine size, but that isn't necessarily true in the rest of the developing world, where foreign automakers are more heavily invested than most American automakers. Not to mention, large parts of the rest of the world doesn't have the money even for a $20k economy car like America, tiny little engines are at a very basic level much cheaper than bigger more complex.

vndkshn

Exactly. F1 is running 1.6L v6s because Mercedes was bitching up a storm because the v8 era had about run it's course due to regulation and they were not winning, they wanted to invest in forced induction/hybrid technology for road car use, and incidentally FOM/FIA let exactly ONE team be part of determining what the new power unit formula would be and go figure, that one team has dominated ever since. People forget that F1 is a political game as well and Mercedes threatened to leave, so they were on the group that defined the new formula and as a result had at least a year head start over everyone else.

F1's stated goals were reducing the money spend (ironic since the current PUs are something like $30m EACH, far and away the most expensive in history) and reduce F1s environmental impact (again ironic since their race schedule has them jet setting from one corner of the world to another). The logistics for a series of race weekends (and the environmental impacts) are staggering. And really, what new technologies have translated from F1 to road cars? Don't think there are any production cars with MGU-H (which is probably good since that is the most common failure point). I'm sure there have been some improvements in hybrid technology translating over, but F1s PU change was all about politics.

Foosh

In order to mitigate the potential wrath of the environmental movement, FIA, IMSA, and other racing governing bodies are moving toward being able to claim they are more "environmentally friendly," hence smaller displacement power plants and technology like KERS in F1. FIA has also started a Formula E (electric) championship series to show how environmentally sensitive they are becoming.

It's more symbolic than real, but they are marketing that all over the world.

Similarly, Ford's decision to go turbo V6 in the FGT, was to market their line of Ecoboost engines and demonstrate how competitive smaller engines could be in major league racing. Never mind, that Porsche has been doing that for years, and that they may not necessarily be all that much more efficient than C7R's, large-displacement, NA, pushrod V8s. Future IMSA rules are likely to penalize displacement, so C8R may well be going in the same direction. They are marketing environmental responsibility.

Shaka

You are wasting your time. There are too many factors to consider when observing this animation video to determine whether one config is better than the other. He does not have the knowledge to describe where 2 valves have an advantage over 4 in a desired design objective of the combustion chamber and it's subsequent duty. What a shame.
I have posted this summation on this paper a thousand times. I post it again because I'm in a good mood, but it will once again fall upon deaf and dumb ears. I use CFD on my aero and exhaust/muffler designs.

The LT 530 HP OHV NA C8 engine will achieve over 30 mpg at 80 mph at 1400 rpm. Heck, that's what my stock 505 hp LS7 achieved over 10 years ago,.

In a cylinder cold flow CFD simulation of a gasolene engine using the hybrid approach of ANSYSfluent produce the following results. The simulation uses parameter and journal files which is a symmetry geometry.( Dynamicmotion ) A visualization and velocity magnitude is plotted for crank angle starting from 0 to 720. The engine is simulated for half cylinder cycle. The In cylinder data file is write displaying swirl and tumble for zones of fluid-ch and fluid- piston-layer. The text file is written in working directory containing swirl, x-tumble, y-tumble and moment of inertia as a function of CA.

Stroke and bore X no. of cylinders is application specific. Controlling piston speed and acceleration and valve configuration, DA and fuel type, NA or blown are the factors that are included in the determination of BMEP.

Did you know that the piston accelerates and de accelerates faster in the first and last 90' of travel and travels more than half the stroke than it does in the remaining 180' crank rotation? Important for overlap cam design.

I have presented the topics of Thermal Efficiency and Volumetric Efficiency as methods for estimating the potential output of a given engine configuration. .

Brake Mean Effective Pressure (BMEP) is another very effective yardstick for comparing the performance of an engine of a given type to another of the same type, and for evaluating the reasonableness of performance claims or requirements.

The definition of BMEP is: the average (mean) pressure which, if imposed on the pistons uniformly from the top to the bottom of each power stroke, would produce the measured (brake) power output.

Please note that BMEP is purely theoretical and has NOTHING to do with ACTUAL CYLINDER PRESSURES. It is simply a tool to evaluate the efficiency of a given engine at producing torque from a given displacement.

By looking at equations 8-a and 8-b below, you can easily see that BMEP is simply the torque per cubic inch of displacement, multiplied by a constant. In fact, many talented people in the engine design and development business currently use torque-per-cubic inch ("torque ratio") instead of BMEP, thereby avoiding that tedious multiplication process.

If you know the torque and displacement of an engine, a very practical way to calculate BMEP is:

(Equation 8-a, 4-Stroke Engine)

(Equation 8-b, 2-Stroke Engine)

(IF you prefer pressure readings in Bar rather than PSI, simply divide PSI by 14.5)

(IF you are interested in the derivation of those relationships, it is explained at the bottom of this page.)

A torque output of 1.0 lb-ft per cubic inch of displacement in a 4-stroke engine equals a BMEP of 150.8 psi. In a 2-stroke engine, that same 1.0 lb-ft of torque per cubic inch is a BMEP of 75.4 psi. (The derivation of that relationship is given at the bottom of this page.)

The discussion on the remainder of this page is with respect to four-stroke engines, but it applies equally to two stroke engines if you simply substitute 75.4 everywhere you see 150.8.

This tool is extremely handy to evaluate the performance which is claimed for any particular engine. For example, the "angle-valve" Lycoming IO-360 (200 HP, 360 CID) and IO-540 (300 HP, 540 CID) engines make their rated power at 2700 RPM. At that RPM (2700), the rated power requires 389 lb-ft (200 HP) and 584 lb-ft (300 HP) of torque respectively. (If you don't understand that calculation,)

From those torque values, it is easy to see (from Equation 8-a above) that both engines operate at a BMEP of about 163 PSI (11.25 bar, or a "torque ratio" of 1.08 lb-ft per cubic inch) at peak power. The BMEP at peak torque is slightly greater.

For a long-life (in an aircraft frame of reference), naturally-aspirated, SI (spark ignition) gasoline-fueled, two-valve-per-cylinder, pushrod engine, a BMEP over 204 PSI (14 bar, torque ratio of 1.35) is quite difficult to achieve and requires a serious development program and very specialized components.

It is worthwhile to note that a contemporary, normally-aspirated CI (compression-ignition) engine can easily make 15 bar of BMEP, and several turbocharged CI street engines routinely exceed 20.5 bar. It is helpful to remember that BMEP is a useful tool for comparing and evaluating similar types of engines.

For comparison purposes, let's look at the engines that are commonly believed to be the very pinnacle of engine performance: Formula-1 (Grand Prix).

An F1 engine is purpose-built and essentially unrestricted. For the 2006 season, the rules required a 90° V8 engine of 2.4 liters displacement (146.4 CID) with a maximum bore of 98mm (3.858) and a required bore spacing of 106.5 mm (4.193). The resulting stroke to achieve 2.4 liters is 39.75 mm (1.565) and is implemented with a 180° crankshaft. The typical rod length is approximately 102 mm (4.016 in), for a Rod / Stroke ratio of about 2.57.

These engines are typically a 4-valve-per cylinder layout with two overhead cams per bank, and pneumatic valve springs. In addition to the few restrictions stated above, there are the following additional restrictions: (a) no beryllium compounds, (b) no MMC pistons, (c) no variable-length intake pipes, (d) one injector per cylinder, and (e) the requirement that one engine last for two race weekends.

At the end of the 2006 season, most of these F1 engines ran up to 20,000 RPM in race trim, and made in the vicinity of 750 HP. One engine for which I have the figures made a peak power value of 755 BHP at an astonishing 19,250 RPM. At a peak power of 755 HP, the torque is 206 lb-ft and peak-power BMEP would be 212 psi. (14.63 bar). Peak torque of 214 lb-ft occurred at 17,000 RPM for a BMEP of 220 psi (15.18 bar). There can be no argument that 212 psi at 19,250 RPM is truly amazing.

However, let's look at some astounding domestic technology.

The NASCAR CUP race engine is a severely-restricted power plant, allegedly being derived from "production" components, although as of 2010, all 4 engines competing at that level (Chevy, Dodge, Ford, Totoyta) are purpose-built race engines designed specifically to NASCAR's rule book.

By regulation, CUP engines have a maximum displacement of 358 CI (5.87 L). They must use a cast-iron 90° V8 block with a 4.500 inch bore spacing and a 90° steel crankshaft. The cylinder heads are purpose-designed and highly-developed, limited to two valves per cylinder, specific valve angles, specific port floor heights, etc.. The valves are operated by a single, block-mounted, flat-tappet camshaft (that's right, still no rollers as of 2014; switching to roller cam followers for the 2015 season) and a pushrod / rocker-arm / coil-spring valvetrain. It is further hobbled by the requirement for a single four-barrel carburetor (until 2011) and now (2012 on), by a 4-barrel-carburetor-like throttle body and individual runner EFI. Electronically-controlled ignition is allowed (as of 2012), and there are minimum weight requirements for the conrods and pistons. More details on these engines can be found HERE.)

How do these CUP engines perform? At the end of the 2014 season, the engines from one major NASCAR engine manufacturer were producing in the neighborhood of 880 HP at about 9000 RPM, and they operate at a max race rpm in the vicinity of 9400 rpm.

Consider the fact that, to produce 880 HP at 9000 RPM, requires 513 lb-ft of torque, for a peak-power BMEP of nearly 216 PSI (14.92 bar, torque ratio of 1.43). Peak torque for that same engine was typically about 535 lb-ft at 7800 RPM, for a peak BMEP of over 226 psi (15.6 bar, torque ratio of 1.50).

THAT is truly astonishing.

Now I digress for a short rant.

It is highly regrettable that, for the 2015 season, the NASCAR braintrust has decided to legislate these amazing engines out of existence. For the 2015 season, these same engines will be fitted with a "Tapered Spacer" between the throttle body and the intake plenum. This spacer amounts to little more than a fancy restrictor plate, which further limits the amount of air that the engine can ingest. That rule change immediately reduced the engine power to roughly 725 HP.

And while the NASCAR functionaries blather on about "reducing the cost of racing", this rule change has required yet another vast expenditure of R&D money to develop a new engine package (combustion chamber, ports, manifold runners, plenum configuration, cam profiles, valve springs, etc. etc. etc) to optimize the performance of this new (different) engine package.)

OK, back to BMEP........

Compare the F1 engine figures to the CUP engine figures to get a more vivid picture of just how clever these CUP engine guys are. In addition, consider the fact that (a) a single engine must be used for each race meeting, which includes at least two practice sessions, a qualifying session, and the race, which can be as long as 600 miles, and (b) the Penske-Dodge engines that won the 2012 championship did not suffer a single engine failure throughout the 38-race, 2012 season.

That being said, recent winners in the annual Engine Masters competition are achieving over 16.9 bar BMEP (245 psi, torque ratio of 1.63 ! ) with normally-aspirated, petrol-fueled, SI, 2-valve pushrod engine. HOWEVER, the builders freely admit that, due to the very aggressive cam profiles, rocker ratios, gross valve lift numbers, and other compromises aimed at maximizing BMEP, these engines have relatively short life expectancies.

NOTE: On 12 Jan 2015, we corrected the following paragraph, thanks to astute reader Dan Nicoson, who pointed out to me that Blanton's engine offering was a 3.8 liter Ford V6, not a 2.8 liter engine, as the following short rant on absurd power claims previously stated.

To appreciate the value of BMEP (or torque per cubic inch) as an engine-claim evaluation tool, suppose someone offers to sell you a 3.8 liter (232 cubic inch) Ford V6 which allegedly makes 290 HP at 5000 RPM, and is equipped with some off-the-shelf aftermarket aluminum heads, intake manifold and a "performance" camshaft. You could evaluate the reasonableness of this claim by calculating (a) that 290 HP at 5000 RPM requires about 305 lb-ft of torque (290 x 5252 ÷ 5000), and (b) that 305 lb-ft. of torque from 232 cubic inches requires a BMEP of 198 PSI (150.8 x 305 ÷ 198), or a torque ratio of 1.31.

You would then dismiss the claim as preposterous because you know that if a guy could do the magic required to make a 1.31 torque ratio with the OEM head design, the OEM valvetrain design and a single centrally-located carburetor, he would be renowned as one of the pre-eminent engine gurus in the world.

As a matter of fact, in order to get a BMEP value of 214 PSI from our GEN-1 aircraft V8, we had to use extremely well developed, high-flowing, high velocity heads, a specially-developed tuned intake and fuel injection system, very well developed roller-cam profiles and valve train components, and a host of very specialized components which we designed and manufactured.

DERIVATION OF THE BMEP EQUATIONS

The definition of BMEP (Brake Mean Effective Pressure), as previously stated at the top of this page, is: " the mean (average) pressure which, if imposed on the pistons uniformly from the top to the bottom of each power stroke, would produce the measured (brake) power output". AGAIN, NOTE that BMEP is purely theoretical and has nothing to do with actual cylinder pressures.

If we put the definition into mathematical form, we get:,

HP = BMEP x piston area x (stroke / 12) x RPM x power-pulses-per-revolution / 33000

Working through that equation in terms of a single cylinder engine, BMEP (in PSI) multiplied by piston area (square inches) gives the mean force applied to the piston during the power stroke. Multiplying that force by the stroke(inches divided by 12, which changes the units to feet) gives the net WORK (in foot-pounds) produced by the piston moving from TDC to BDC with the BMEP exerted on it throughout that motion. (Clearly this is not an attempt to represent the reality in the combustion chamber. As previously stated, BMEP is simply a convenient tool for comparing and evaluating engine performance.)

Next, power is defined as work-per-unit time. Therefore, multiplying the WORK (ft-lbs) by the RPM, then multiplying by power-pulses-per-revolution (PPR) gives the net (brake) power (foot-pounds per minute in this example) produced by one cylinder. (In a single-cylinder engine, PPR is either 1 for a 2-stroke engine or 1/2 for a 4-stroke engine.

Since one HORSEPOWER is defined as 33,000 foot-pounds-of-work-per-minute, dividing the WORK (ft-lbs) by 33,000 changes the units from foot-pounds-per-minute to HP.

Since it is clear that piston area x stroke is the displacement of one cylinder (in cubic inches), then the equation can be simplified to:

HP = BMEP x (displacement / 12) x RPM x power-pulses-per-revolution / 33000



Horsepower is also defined as:

HP = Torque x RPM / 5252

Substituting that equation into the preceding one gives:

Torque x RPM / 5252 = BMEP x displacement / 12 x RPM x PPR / 33000



Reducing that equation gives:

BMEP = (Torque x 12 x 33,000 / 5252) / (Displacement x PPR)

Evaluating the constants, 12 x 33,000 / 5252 = 75.39985, which can safely be approximated by 75.4. Simplifying the equation again gives:

BMEP = (Torque x 75.4) / (Displacement x PPR)



It is also clear that because the equation includes PPR, it applies to engines with any number of cylinders by using the total displacement, total brake torque, and correct PPR.

Suppose, for example, that you measured 14.45 lb-ft of torque from a 125 cc (7.625 CID) single-cylinder 2-stroke engine at 12,950 RPM, you would have 35.63 HP (285 HP per liter, quite impressive indeed). The BMEP would be:

BMEP = (14.45 x 75.4) / (7.625 x 1) = 142.9 psi (9.85 bar)



That BMEP (9.85 bar) is an impressive number for a piston-ported 2-stroke engine.

However, suppose someone claimed to be making that same torque from a single cylinder 4-stroke 125 cc engine at 12,950 RPM. The power would be the same (35.63 HP, or 285 HP per liter). The power density would not necessarily set off alarms, (the 2008 2.4 liter F1 V8 engines approached 315 HP per liter), but the BMEP would cause that claim to be declared highly questionable:

BMEP = (14.45 x 75.4) / (7.625 x 1/2) = 285.8 psi (19.7 bar)



That BMEP (19.7 bar) is clearly absurd for a normally-aspirated engine. Professor Gordon Blair stated that exceeding 15 bar of BMEP in a N/A engine is virtually impossible, but that was a few years ago. NASCAR Cup engines are now approaching 15.6 bar



Clearly, the difference between 2- and 4-stroke engines is simply a factor of 2, because of the fact that a 2-stroke cylinder fires once per revolution whereas a 4-stroke engine fires only once per two revolutions. The equations can be simplified further by incorporating that PPR factor in the constant 75.4 and eliminating PPR from the equation, therefore making the constant for a 4-stroke engine 2 x 75.4 = 150.8. That produces the equations shown at the top of this article, which use the full engine displacement and measured torque.

(Equation 8-a, 4-Stroke Engine)

-- The NASCAR engines are not stock small blocks. Instead of stock 4.4" bore centers, they have 4.5" bore enters(and the block is longer than a small block Chevy). On top of that, they are made of CGI which is very strong so they can even run thinner cylinder walls and maintain it's strength,

Add that together and you have a large bore(with heads that have huge valves) and a much shorter stoke than your stock small block, and still have a 358 cubic inch max displacement. The heads, intake manifold and the fuel injector move tremendous amount of air and fuel, along with very stout valve springs(that only have to last one race) so they can hit 9,500 RPM while producing over 850 HP. Okay, so a little over 70 fps... however, consider that if you use a longer stroke to increase piston speed as opposed to increasing the redline, then what?? For instance, a 4" stroke at the same 6500 RPM redline is moving the piston at 72.2 fps. Obviously, valvetrain stability at 6500 is the same regardless of stroke/piston speed, so that's not really an issue. Rod angularity may well be an issue, but since these are already fairly long rod motors, it could be a lot worse than it is.

As for high RPM motor durability, the use of as light of a reciprocating assembly as possible coupled with short strokes (for instance, most NASCAR motors have strokes under 3.4") and the knowledge that the motor will be torn down after the race anyhow... I think that all of those things are contributing factors.

• Displacement: 1,997 cc (121.9 cu in)
• Compression: 11.7:1 (Japan), 11.0:1 (North America, Europe)
• Bore: 87 mm (3.4 in)
• Stroke: 84 mm (3.3 in)
• Rod Length: 153 mm
• Rod/stroke ratio: 1.82
• Power:
  1. JDM 250 PS (186.42 kW) @ 8,600rpm & 150 ft lbs (217.71 Nm) @ 7,500 rpm
  2. USDM 237 PS (177 kW) @ 8,300 rpm; 155 ft lb @ 7,500 rpm
• Rev limit: 9000 rpm
• VTEC actuates between 5500-6000 RPM depending on ecu triggers.

The F20C was designed with high engine speed capability in mind, for increased power output; the rev limit is 9000 rpm, with VTEC engagement at 6000 rpm. Its relatively long stroke of 84mm results in a mean piston speed of 4965 ft/m, or 24.6 m/s, which was higher than any other production car to date. Power output is 234 bhp (177kW) at 8300 rpm in North America and Europe. The Japanese version, which has a higher compression ratio, is capable of 247 bhp (186kW) at 8600 rpm. Honda's F20C Engine won a spot on Wards' 10 Best Engines List four times, in 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003.

The engine displaces 1,997 cc (121.9 cu in), lending to the Honda S2000's name. This method of naming follows suit with the rest of the Honda S roadsters

"At that time, piston speed for racing (C5-R forged piston) was about 4500 feet-per-minute but 7100-RPM for a Corvette LS7 is 4700 feet-per-minute. (LS2 and LS3 cast piston speeds max'ed at 4000-fpm.

. Save this so I don't have to post his again,

Further reading: IN CYLINDER COLD FLOW CFD SIMULATION OF IC ENGINE USING HYBRID APPROACH
https://www.academia.edu/7775062/IN_...YBRID_APPROACH

Darion

I dont remember how involved Mercedes was in the F1 switch to V6 Turbo hybrid but I do remember Redbull and Renault threatening to leave the series if changes were not made. Renault wanted something closer to what they produce, V6 T, not that they are close at all in reality. Redbull threatens to pull out every year or so, it's hard to know what they were thinking. F1 just cant really afford to lose manufacturer support, they did embrace the green aspect and off they went.

PC

vndkshn

Mercedes was the only team on the working group that came up with the new PU formula. They were pushing for a change. Renault and Redbull at the time would have been perfectly happy with continuing on, they had won four consecutive constructors and driver's championships. The bone that Mercedes got to stay in F1 was to be on the committee determining the new formula and I think ol Bernie had something to do with Lewis going there as well.

Redbull threatened to leave circa 2015-2018 because Renault were screwing the pooch in terms of performance and reliability and as a result the Redbull really wasn't a contender and nobody (specifically Mercedes and Ferrari) wanted to sell them a PU. The fact they did as well as they did and stole a few races speaks to the chassis but more to the drivers and strategy than anything else (combined with boneheaded things from Ferrari specifically). I'm actually interested to see how it works out with Honda. Redbull was rumored to be heavily involved (or completely behind) the electrical side of the PU from Renault, so them bringing that knowledge to Honda (which struggled in terms of power output on the electrical side) should be a huge boost. It was rumored that the ICE in the Honda PU was actually the most powerful, but that they struggled in engine management and on the electrical side.

Darion

Well all the articles and reporting were like 8 and 9 years ago so maybe my memory is slipping! Lol. Proposed changes were approved like 2011 or 12. I remembered Merc opposing the proposed 4 cylinder Turbo as not marketable for them which led to a compromise on the V6 T. Alot if working parts and as much as I love F1 the change so often its difficult to keep straight.

Hey I appreciate that ya have a big interest, if ya are on LinkedIn join the F1 USA group.

PC

GrandSport 2017

It would be interesting to see what an unrestricted RO7 engine with the proper cam and optimal compression ratio could actually make.

My company is regularly producing "grudge" engines making .190-.195 hp per cc. 1641cc (87mm 3.425" bore x 69mm 2.716 stroke) engines making 296 SAE corrected HP at 11,400 rpm at the back tire on a Dynojet 250i. At the tranny output shaft that would be about 315-320 SAE corrected HP. We have run some engines on the DTS engine dyno for development purposes and found the HP numbers to be right inline with the Dynojet numbers.

NHRA Prostock is making about .180 hp per cc so I'm guessing a CUP 5.8L engine could make about 1,085 hp with no intake restrictors and the proper cam and optimized CR. But not for 500 miles and it would be revving much higher.

I just bought an LT1 head so I'll be digitizing it and extracting all the math from this head design over the next few months and running all sorts of simulations and "what ifs" on it.

Once I get the ports all modeled I will post pics and some info. At this point I have just seen these heads at PRI and have no real data but they do look nice for a production head. Real nice.

But I think 600 hp is doable from the factory with a warranty with this push rod engine.

dcbingaman

I pretty much agree with your statement - EV's DO NOT significantly reduce GHG emissions until and unless the electrical grid gets powered by solar, wind, hydro or nuclear power. The emphasis on EV's first puts the cart in front of the horse. In addition, most power plants burn coal, which produce more GHG gas then any other fossil fuel. Conversion of all coal plants to natural gas would reduce their GHG emissions by 45%, and would greatly reduce other pollutants, (sulfuric acid, etc.) A carbon tax on utilities (only) would probably push the market in the right direction with little impact on consumers, giving how much natural gas the country is producing and how easy it is to convert a coal plant into a natural gas plant.

Powering cars with LNG instead of gasoline would reduce automotive GHG emissions by about 25%, but requires even more infrastructure change than EV's. I do think, however, LNG or liquified methane (CH4) powered aircraft are in the future. The energy density of an Li-Ion battery is simply too low to allow for a B777 or A350 to operate at the ranges these aircraft must fly (up to 9,000 miles.)

fioranosportscars

I think corvette needs to step it up and make a coupe different models just like Ferrari,mclaren,Lamborghini and Aston . I think they have plenty of funds and resource to dominate . I am a Ferrari guy... but I love corvette.... anywhere in the world when you mention America the first thing people think of is CORVETTE AND HARLEY DAVIDSON 💪💪💪💪

JerryU

Thought this was an interesting article showing the number of companies moving to 2.0 Liter double overhead cam, turbo engines because they “think” they get better fuel economy!

“This mad rush from larger-displacement V6s to smaller, turbocharged four-cylinders was first fueled by the automakers' need to improve fuel economy to meet customer demand as well as more stringent government regulations. Fewer cylinders mean fewer parts, which means less internal friction. This makes the engine more efficient, so it burns less fuel.

The automakers we spoke with say that the downsizing of engines will continue, so for the near future at least the 2.0-liter turbo is here to stay.

New Models Available with a 2.0 liter Turbo

1. Acura RDX*
2. Alfa Romeo Giulia
3. Alfa Romeo Stelvio
4. Audi TT
5. Audi A3
6. Audi A4
7. Audi A5
8. Audi A6
9. Audi Q3
10. Audi Q5
11. Audi Q7
12. BMW 2 Series
13. BMW 3 Series
14. BMW 4 Series
15. BMW 5 Series
16. BMW 7 Series
17. BMW Z4
18. BMW X1
19. BMW X2
20. BMW X3
21. BMW X4
22. BMW X5
23. Buick Regal
24. Buick Envision
25. Cadillac ATS
26. Cadillac CTS
27. Cadillac CT6
28. Chevy Camaro
29. Chevy Malibu
30. Chevy Equinox
31. Chevy Traverse
32. Ford Focus
33. Ford Fusion
34. Ford Escape
35. Ford Edge
36. Genesis G70*
37. GMC Terrain
38. Honda Accord
39. Honda Civic
40. Hyundai Sonata
41. Hyundai Santa Fe*
42. Hyundai Santa Fe Sport
43. Hyundai Veloster*
44. Infiniti QX30
45. Infiniti QX50
46. Infiniti Q50
47. Jaguar XE
48. Jaguar XF
49. Jaguar F-Type
50. Jaguar E-Pace
51. Jaguar F-Pace
52. Jeep Cherokee
53. Jeep Wrangler
54. Kia Optima
55. Kia Sportage
56. Kia Sorento
57. Kia Stinger
58. Land Rover Range Rover Evoque
59. Land Rover Discovery Sport
60. Land Rover Range Rover Velar
61. Land Rover Range Rover Sport*
62. Land Rover Range Rover*
63. Lexus IS
64. Lexus RC
65. Lexus NX
66. Lexus GS
67. Lincoln MKZ
68. Lincoln MKC
69. Lincoln Nautilus*
70. Mercedes-Benz CLA-Class
71. Mercedes-Benz GLA-Class
72. Mercede-Benz C-Class
73. Mercedes-Benz E-Class
74. Mercedes-Benz GLC-Class
75. Mercedes-Benz SLC-Class
76. Mini Cooper
77. Mini Clubman
78. Mini Countryman
79. Porsche 718 Boxster
80. Porsche 718 Cayman
81. Porsche Macan
82. Subaru Forester
83. Subaru WRX
84. Volvo S60
85. Volvo V60
86. Volvo V90
87. Volvo S90
88. Volvo XC40
89. Volvo XC60
90. Volvo XC90
91. VW Golf
92. VW Beetle
93. VW Passat
94. VW Tiguan
95. VW Atlas

Warp Factor

Which of these has 650 horsepower? Which one of these do you want in your Corvette?

JerryU

^^^
I’m off Alfa as being on top! The 2019 Volvo 2 Liter Turbo + supercharge FWD combined with an electric hybrid RWD has 415 hp total and 494 pound-feet of torque. Since we don’t get snow in Eastern SC I’ll take 2 Volvo engines (4 Liter) providing 830 hp system with 600hp to the rear wheels and 230 electric FWD in my C8!

Can see the new headline that will get World Wide coverage because CNN International will have the video clip playing:
“AOC says GM announces their halo C8 Corvette with an old technology, high CO2 emitting engine while socialist Sweden, has a more environmentally friendly engine in 2019 that gets almost the same power from an engine 1/3 the size that also recovers wasted braking energy!”

PS: Having sold our company to the World Wide leader in our industry (at the time) from Sweden and worked with them for 10 years- they are far from socialists!

Warp Factor

LOL, so you want your Corvette to have two Volvo engines, and still have less power than either GM's LT4 or LT5?

Dominic Sorresso

Jerry,

Perhaps we can make up a form
letter notifying these OEMs about how wrong they are, especially thise from “socialist” countries.

Warp Factor

Yup, and then it became more about "virtue-signaling".