How was Alfa and Ford able to squeeze 100-120 hp out of an N/A pushrod V4 engine?

The 1.9 made about 100hp.

Lancia made a high compression 1.6 which had 132 horsepower as well.
Fuckin Italians know their vees.

Never heard of a1.9 v4
What car was it in? Maybe it's for German Fords only?

I know the Transit had a 1.7 v4 and a 2.0 v4. But Transit engines were always lower compression than car engines.

Fiat is god mode with engines.

>Ferrari 458 Speciale
>4.5L DOHC 32-valve V-8
>132.7 hp/liter
> 9,000 rpm peak power.

>What car was it in?
Corsair wiki said.

Magic formula confirms about 115 lb-ft

magic lb-ft torque formula:
0.0762 × [engine size in CCs] - 6.9 = lb-ft of torque

Dont ask me how it works but its scary accurate

Dude, google AVL Hyper 200 of you want to have your mind blown.

That's a pretty respectable number from such a puny motor.

While that is, infact, cray, It's using a shit load forced induction and an electric motor as well.
While i think forced induction is fine and whatnot, it takes a lot more work to squeeze every last horsepower out of a naturally aspirated engine.
Alfa and Lancia both seem to be good at this.
A lot of their past small, sub 2l cars are able to get very respectable power without forced induction. I'm not sure if emissions played a part in reducing horsepower back then but take a look at this:
youtube.com/watch?v=mFKxEcQ3r7k

it's making about 90 horsepower from an engine only a bit bigger than a motorcycle engine but almost 50 years ago.
That's pretty damn good.

What Ford had a V4? A Euro-market only car I've never heard of?

>and an electric motor as well
Just an electric compressor.
But yeah, thats ofc not comparable to n/a. I'd be interested how much I can get out of my 328i without super/turbo charging it. I expect very little for alot of money.

Wait so is everyone ignoring the Aprilia RSV4 right now? 200+hp n/a and has 115nm of torque. It's also a smaller engine at just under 1l.

OH Pushrod, my bad.

fucking lol

over 200 hp? are you a troll?

M8 have you seen the RR and RF engine charts? it's like 201-202

60's Euro Fords had them and for liscenced the Taunus engine to Saab.

Obv there are a few motorbikes with V4s but the question is how can they squeeze so much power from such a small displacement without forced induction.

100hp is not a lot for 1.6 liters.

If you built it as a race car you could probably get near 200.
if it had a head designed specifically for racing probably over 200.

>100hp is not a lot for 1.6 liters.
Yes but this was 60 years ago when 100hp from 3 liter engines was common.
For example, the Blue Flame that powered original Corvettes was 3.9 liters and produced about 150 horsepower.

High RPM engines. At an extreme end look at F1 engines. Either the 3.0l V10's or the 2.4 V8's. Both engines would go to about 20,000 (yes twenty thousand rpm). They would only produce about 200 to 300 ft/lbs yet produce well into the 700-800 how range. It's all about RPM range.

In comparison look at WWII tank engines, 13L of displacement yet they only revved to about 3k rpm and only produced 140-400 hp. Yet they produced fairly massive torque numbers.

And both of these examples are non turbo/supercharged.

I thought F1 cars were twincharged no?

The rules change from time to time. Back in the late 80'summer they were 1.6L turbos producing into the 1000hp area in quali trim.

From the 90's it'll 2014 they were all N/A, now their using 1.6 turbo hybrid units.

but it's irrelevant that it was 50 years ago.
they didn't squeeze anything. a modern 1.6 liter will do over 200 wheel horsepower. that's squeezing.

a stock bmw m10 1.5L (1960) will do 110hp if you put a bigger cam in it and rev it 8k before it breaks a rocker.

the formula for n/a engines has always been the same, high compression, high revs, undersquare, and long rod ratio.
the modern power advancements that have been made are in piston/combustion chamber design, fuel delivery, port design, and lighter stronger mass.

>but it's irrelevant that it was 50 years ago.
We've come a long way from side draft carbs m8.

>piston/combustion chamber design, fuel delivery, port design, and lighter stronger mass.
But this is a lot of advancement, especially since the V4 configuration was DOA.

What exactly are you arguing?
The point is 100hp from 1.6 liters is not a lot, whether it's 100 years ago or today.

How did they do it? I don't know maybe they got lucky with port design, maybe it revs 500rpm higher than it's nearest competitor, maybe they had a good distributor that allowed them to run higher compression. They didn't need to squeeze very hard to get those numbers.

The race engines from the same era were probably making much more hp/L

>The point is 100hp from 1.6 liters is not a lot,
it is compared to larger motors producing the same power.
The argument would be the same that motorcycle engines are doing more with less than car engines. The question I ask is how it's done.

I already told you how it's done.

The smaller an engine the higher the hp/liter due to weight and friction surface area. A small engine will always be more efficient than a large one.

Talk me out of buying this and building a dune buggy around it.

motusmotorcycles.com/american-v4

The Ford engine was junk like most Ford engines, and Alfa never made a V4.

I must have been thinking of Lancia then.

you are

such a qt

>hp/liter

do you get triggered by "stage" as well?

How was Honda able to squeeze 185bhp from a NA 1.6?

>Ls3 6.2
>.0762x6200-6.9=465.54
>Claimed torque=425
>40.5 off
Not bad I guess

>square motor
>high revs
>low friction parts
>vvl

It's easy. You can make more horsepower by increasing torque which is done by increasing displacement usually. Or more revs which is what hondurr does. Or atleast used to.

>10.8:1 compression
>Over square design (81 mm bore x 77.4 mm stroke)
>8500 rpm redline 9000 rpm limit
>1.85:1 rod stroke ratio
>large ports and valves
>free flowing intake and exhaust
>DOHC + VTEC, allowing a lot of valve lift and duration as well as variable valve timing

also smaller engines have less internal friction etc so they can make more hp per liter

BMW m12 1.5 4 cylinder made 860hp

>pre-compressor throttle body

for 5 seconds

if you wanted 1500hp in qualifying then yes.

Didn't they make like 1500 or so in full race mode?

Seems like that 5 seconds was enough to completely wreck everyones ass.

What is a pre compressor throttle body? Could someone explain this?

In a straight line, but the boost was pretty hard to manage, honda, renault and tag-porrsche v6's were the engines to have.

I only remember them beating the everloving shit out of everything the first year or so when they started racing them, finally technological advancement caught up with them and they were only good on non-technical tracks due to the boost you mentioned, it building up really slowly.

the throttle body is mounted directly to the turbocharger, instead of at the intake manifold like it would normally be.

For qualifying. And for racing was 640hp

That motor was junk
This happened a lot
It didnt wreck shit. Had TONs of DNFs

The BMW M12 was by far the most powerful F1 engine of all time, running 5.5 bar of boost during qualifying in the Brabham BT55 in 1986, resulting in 1400 bhp, and in later versions like the one pictured here were tilted 72 degrees to lower the weight in the chassis... The biggest problem was they they tripled their horsepower within a 1000rpm rev range making them extremely hard to drive....Oh... and they suffered dramatically from reliability issues forcing BMW to pull out of F1 altogether by the end of 1987 and giving meaning to the saying...... "the candle that burns twice as bright only burns for half as long"

Engineering is about optimizing whatever metric you see fit for the application, be it reliability or power. Racecar engineering is about building a car with the smallest possible factor of safety. They say that if the car falls apart just across the finish line then you built it right. Honda R&D has published some interesting technical papers on their F1 program. Back when you really needed an engine every time you went out on the track the engines were built to only last a few thousand kilometers. When the rules changed and you couldn't swap engines as often they upped the service life, took the hit in weight (or invested in alternative materials, etc).

BMW just cut the corner a bit too close on this one, overstressed the engine a bit too much.

Junk for reliability. But what do you expect from a 1.5L making over 1000hp?

It was never meant to last forever as says

I just remember it being nigh unbeatable at first, then it blew up and took half of the car with it

They won in 1982 with Brabham-BMW and Piquet, but after that it was McLaren with V6 TAG-Porsche then Honda engines that dominated. Wheelspin in 3rd shows you how mental it was, Berger said it was incredibly hard to drive.

A lot of the early Turbo's had shit reliability, cars with old 3.0 Cosworth V8 DFV's were getting podiums at the power circuits like hockenheim due to the turbo's on other cars exploding.