10 great engines of 2009.

[htc***]

Also talk about Mazda MZR DISI MZ3 engine in photo #7.

http://autos.sympatico.ca/photos-videos/2402/10-great-engines-of-2009

[MAZDA Kitten]

Awesome!!! Nice find... makes my decision for my next car that much easier

[Zoom Zoom Boy]

Awesome!!! Nice find... makes my decision for my next car that much easier

Let me guess, a TDI VW, MK ?

As for the Mazda MZR 2.3 DISI DOHC engine in the Mazdaspeed3, no suprise that it made this list. After all, it was on the list of Ward's top ten engines of the year for 3 years in a row, 2006, 2007 and 2008...

[BlK98Cx]

Let me guess, a TDI VW, MK ?

As for the Mazda MZR 2.3 DISI DOHC engine in the Mazdaspeed3, no suprise that it made this list. After all, it was on the list of Ward's top ten engines of the year for 3 years in a row, 2006, 2007 and 2008...

one of the reason i got me a speed 3!!!!

[TheMAN]

it's great... until the turbo starts smoking

[MAZDA Kitten]

Let me guess, a TDI VW, MK ?

Those things are torquey as ****... especially chipped! Whoa... but I'd never get another VW again. I'm done with that whole scene!

I want a Speed3!!

[Gen1GT]

What's with automotive journalists and their obsession with diesel engines? They keep acting like they're the best thing since sliced bread, but pretend like they don't smell like ass, don't sound like a lawn mower and don't make crappy power. Let me set it all straight by saying they still stink, still sound like lawn mowers and still can't make reasonable power to save their lives. Even the Mercedes Blutec engine still sound and smell like diesels. Let's face it, the only advantage is fuel economy and low RPM torque. But torque doesn't accelerate a car, power does. That why nobody makes a true high performance diesel. Even the Audi R8 LeMans diesel was made for fuel economy, not lap times. The flame front just isn't fast enough to keep up with a fast moving piston. Because power is a function of torque and RPM, and because you have no control over the ignition timing of a diesel engine, there's no way to increase performance as RPM climbs.

The future of high performance engines is in direction injection, high compression forced induction...just like Mazda is already doing.

[stock3]

Gen1GT, while your point about the stink and noise is true, it just comes to personal preferences, someone that is used to gasoline engine will be bothered by this, but ask anyone working with heavy equipment and with diesel engines in general and they will tell you that gas smells badly, and they prefer diesel sound over gas, it's all a matter of preference.


Now you mention Le mans, and while Audi's game plan was for fewer pit stops and not the fastest lap times, Peugeots, that aslo had a diesel engine, were clocking the fastest laps, although they didn't win due to mechanical failure, but they were ahead of the pack right from the beginning, so your argument that diesel engines don make power is not entirely accurate. Also it is TORQUE that accelerates the car, and is what pushes you into the seat, you have these two concepts confused. Power will determine how fast your car can go, everything else being equal.

Also the concepts of torque and power are not exactly a dry cut, e.i.it is not always true that if one car has more torque it will accelerate faster, or if one car has more power it will have a higher top speed. There are other crucial factors like; gearing, power to weight ratio, drag coefficient, frontal area of the car, just to name a few, that play a huge role how the overall package behaves.

And since pretty much all diesel cars are made with fuel economy, and driveability in mind, it's hard to compare two cars with those two engines. Although, I read that the new BMW 335d is really a hot rod and gets decent fuel mileage for a sports luxury sedan.

[pacmann33]

I love the speed 3 but the turbo issues and engines blowing up...yikes...I'm not a fan of many turbo engines at all in daily drivers.

I wouldn't personally buy a speed 3....but while they are working they must be fun as heck! sleeper appeal!!!

Daily driver engines should last 500,000kms with no engine problems...

[Gen1GT]

Gen1GT, while your point about the stink and noise is true, it just comes to personal preferences, someone that is used to gasoline engine will be bothered by this, but ask anyone working with heavy equipment and with diesel engines in general and they will tell you that gas smells badly, and they prefer diesel sound over gas, it's all a matter of preference.


Now you mention Le mans, and while Audi's game plan was for fewer pit stops and not the fastest lap times, Peugeots, that aslo had a diesel engine, were clocking the fastest laps, although they didn't win due to mechanical failure, but they were ahead of the pack right from the beginning, so your argument that diesel engines don make power is not entirely accurate. Also it is TORQUE that accelerates the car, and is what pushes you into the seat, you have these two concepts confused. Power will determine how fast your car can go, everything else being equal.

Also the concepts of torque and power are not exactly a dry cut, e.i.it is not always true that if one car has more torque it will accelerate faster, or if one car has more power it will have a higher top speed. There are other crucial factors like; gearing, power to weight ratio, drag coefficient, frontal area of the car, just to name a few, that play a huge role how the overall package behaves.

And since pretty much all diesel cars are made with fuel economy, and driveability in mind, it's hard to compare two cars with those two engines. Although, I read that the new BMW 335d is really a hot rod and gets decent fuel mileage for a sports luxury sedan.

I think the fast lap times by the Peugeots has more to do with the chassis and the drivers. Regardless, I think your point about torque is a popular one, however, it does not apply for a rotationally driven motors (be it electric or IC). Torque can't be assumed to be simply "force." It's more complex than that. Because the rate of which torque is created matters just as much as the amount of torque, the torque number is nearly meaningless in comparing apples to apples. Power, not torque, is what accelerates a car. Gearing and other factors only affect it in-so-much that gearing is the drive of choice in a transmission. If you remove distinct gears from the equation, by using a CVT for example, then you remove need for changing gears and remove the need to choose gear ratios. A CVT will allow the engine to remain at its RPM best indicitive of power. Look at a Maxima with a CVT. It revs to 6500 RPM and stays there until 240 km/h. If it was following the peak torque of the engine, it would rev to 3500 RPM then stay there.

Use this formula: Acceleration=Power/(mass X velocity)

Since power is a function of torque and time, and amount of torque you make plays a part, but so does the rate in which you make torque. A car that makes 100lb-ft at 8000 RPM is better than a car that makes 100lb-ft at 3000 RPM.

[stock3]

To accelerate something you have to apply force to it not power.

Peak torque of an engine at given RPM doesn't mean peak torque at the wheel at given RPM. Transmission acts as a torque multiplier and most engine/transmissions are set up to deliver maximum torque to the wheels at peak RPM, where the engine makes peak power. That's why Maxima with a CVT stays near red line, because the wheels will "see" maximum torque at that RPM. But that doesn't mean that power accelerates the car, power, torque and RPM are directly related, but power in itself is not tangible and cannot be measured, only calculated, speed, distance, force all can be measured, and torque is the force that is measurable and that's what accelerates the car.

To summarise, you are right that to achieve the best acceleration in a car, one should shift near redline, where the engine makes peak power, and not where the engine makes peak torque, but doesn't mean that power accelerates the car.

[Gen1GT]

Well, you're half right. Force is required for acceleration, but torque isn't as simple to apply to acceleration formulae, since we're not talking about rockets and space shuttles. Strange how even stating the calculation for acceleration, I wasn't taken seriously. Perhaps the expanded version of the formula will instill understanding.

Acceleration=[(TQ X RPM / 5252)/(Mass X Velocity)]

As you can see, 4 factors will increase the rate of acceleration. An increase in torque or RPM, or a decrease in mass or desired final velocity. You cannot separate torque supplied from an internal combustion engine from time. If disallowed to rotate, and engine stalls and makes zero torque and horsepower. By its very nature, we have to factor time in with torque to describe any engine. They're inherently linked. Torque as a value is also useless without also stating the RPM it was measured at. Look at electric motors. Nobody rates their motors with a torque value. They rate their power and RPM. If one must know the torque value, then one must do the math.

You’re also correct that power is intangible; it’s merely a calculation. That doesn’t change the requirement of force and time, not merely force alone. You can answer any query into the acceleration of a body by calculating power. You cannot always calculate acceleration by knowing torque. I can apply 100 lb-ft to a very tight nut with a ratchet, but how fast did I accelerate it? There’s a chance that it didn’t move, let alone accelerate.

Regardless, in calculating acceleration, we need to know final velocity (60 miles per hour perhaps?). Velocity is also a function of time. You literally cannot remove the time factor in calculating acceleration, which means you cannot remove the power factor.

Perhaps a different approach will explain it. Most persons don’t get the calculation of power to arrive at acceleration rates, so they generally use:

Acceleration=Force/Mass

Acceleration is expressed as a distance per unit squared. i.e., m/s²

That’s metres per second, per second. That brings the time factor back into the equation. Even with this formula, we can calculate power. If the acceleration run involved 33,000 feet and one pound of force and one pound of mass, in one second , then we’d have one horsepower. I don’t need to increase the force to increase the rate of acceleration. If I can now move that one pound of mass to the desired velocity in 16,500 feet, then I don’t need to know the force to know power has also increased to 2 hp.

I hope that explains it better.

[Gen1GT]

Another thing; peak torque at the axles is proportional to peak torque at the engine, regardless of RPM. If you make peak torque at 3500 RPM, then that's the RPM in which you will have peak torque at the wheels for any given gear.

[Zoom Zoom Boy]

This thread is starting to turn into one of these...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_cCmvObyemK4/R2jl3oyyeHI/AAAAAAAAAGY/ZCLK_bbcpec/s400/Einstein-Do-Not-Worry-Posters.jpg

Guys, as fascinating as this topic may be, much like a hot poker in the cornea, please open a new thread in the General Section if you wish to discuss and debate physics and let us get back to keeping this thread about great engines. Thanks in advance.

[SSmoked]

Glad to see the v6 eco-boost and LSA in that list. those motors are excellent to say the least.
im suprised the 2.3DISI made it though with the turbo problems with it. personaly if i were to put a 4cyl in that list it would be chevys LNF. not only is it a great motor and very reliable it also gets great gas milage considering the power output on them. not to mention the LNF is found in the car that set the FWD record at the nuribergring.

[Zoom Zoom Boy]

Glad to see the v6 eco-boost and LSA in that list. those motors are excellent to say the least.
im suprised the 2.3DISI made it though with the turbo problems with it. personaly if i were to put a 4cyl in that list it would be chevys LNF. not only is it a great motor and very reliable it also gets great gas milage considering the power output on them. not to mention the LNF is found in the car that set the FWD record at the nuribergring.

The bad turbo issues in the MS3 were related to the turbo's in the 2007's. They recalled them and have been using a different turbo manufacturer since. The smoking turbo issues are much the same, but mostly, they manifest on heavily modified MS3's where the downpipe has been removed for an after-market one and a CBE also and usually other mods too. The DISI engine is not just in the MS3 remember, but also powers the CX-7. It does not have wide scale reliability issues at all when left stock.