AMG declares the horsepower war ‘over’

[Gripenfelter]

It looks like Chevrolet’s Corvette isn’t the only model or maker to decide that horsepower figures have reached a good resting point. Mercedes’ AMG head has declared horsepower is “not our main focus,” instead the company will be gathering effort to improve interior and exterior appearance and quality, handling and the rest of the “overall package.”

AMG is currently happy with their power and performance levels relative to the rest of the market, and while the company won’t completely rule out further power advances, it will focus its might on improving efficiency and lowering CO2 emissions. The latter will be of paramount importance if they brand hopes to continue for long in most of the nations that constitute its largest markets, and certainly if it wants to do business in the EU, and increasingly, the U.S.

One of the main changes that may fuel the increase in economy and decrease in emissions: not all AMG models may get unique powerplants. In fact, there’s a good likelihood that AMG models could share engines with the normal Mercedes-Benz cars they are based on, according to Carpoint. An example of what AMG can do when it builds a custom engine, the 63-series engine, which powers the CLS63 AMG among others, is a fire-breathing maniac of automotive excess, producing in excess of 500hp in various trims. Unfortunately, fuel consumption is similarly excessive, clocking in at 16.5L/100km (14.25mpg US) in the combined cycle.

This compares fairly well to cars like Audi’s RS6, which grinds out 573hp from its 5.0L V10 engine. Remember, these are the horsepower figures for family sedans - yet there are supercars that can barely rival such figures. In fact, Audi’s own R8 comes in over 150hp shy of the RS6. Perhaps it really is time to focus on things besides power.

[Xtrema]

I think they want to ban any car that don't do 35MPG or more in Europe. A shame really but I guess we'll find other ways.

[treg50]

Cool, the big Germ Mercedes-Benz is following General Motor's lead.

Time to looking at handling, control, comfort and safety... maybe even some energy efficiency.

Originally posted by Gripenfelter
... Perhaps it really is time to focus on things besides power.

While we're there maybe it's time to focus on things besides cars. There's an original idea.

[antiguru]

I agree in that it's not a challenge to make a super HP car anymore. It's way more of a design and engineering challenge to build for efficiency.

[rage2]

Well there goes all the fun.

Remember all the cool cars we got in the late 70's when an oil crisis meant we had to focus on efficiency?







With the exception of the VW Golf, none of those are considered "classics". The Golf is borderline...

[Mr_ET]

the time for more turbochargers and smaller engines is upon us.

That or just smaller engines with no turbochargers

[rage2]

Turbos doesn't save fuel. Less power saves fuel. Throw more air into the engine, you're gonna need more fuel to make the power.

Hell, my 944 turbo had 4 cylinders... and V12 Diablo fuel consumption .

[Fuji]

BOOO I better buy a v10 with gobs of power while I stil have that option!

[NickGT]

Originally posted by Mr_ET
the time for more turbochargers and smaller engines is upon us.

That or just smaller engines with no turbochargers

My car gets roughly the same gas mileage as an EVO X... Both have similar power levels (slight edge to the mustang), obviously the handling goes the evo. But the point is... little motors with big turbos are gas guzzlers too. So I think the second part of your comment is more likely

www.fueleconomy.gov

[mikestypes]

Turbo and Supercharged cars require a higher amount of fuel to make the same hp numbers as a Naturally Aspirated engine. This is known as brake specific fuel consumption. Also, the higher an engine revs, the less efficient the combustion process becomes...

[Rocky]

To those arguing against improving efficiency instead of HP:

Why not? Efficiency is key.

Type R producing 200 HP on an inline four anyone? Efficiency can easily lead to very sporty cars, which can indeed become "classics". Maybe your MPG won't get better, but at the same time, you can do more with the fuel you're consuming... not a bad trade off IMO.

[riander]

ITR's are awesome!!
It would be interesting to see who can make the most powerful I4 engine!!
They will all be torqueless, but still you cant argue that the ITR and s2000 and such have deadly power to fuel efficiency ratios (if such a thing exists)

[mikestypes]

Originally posted by riander
ITR's are awesome!!
It would be interesting to see who can make the most powerful I4 engine!!
They will all be torqueless, but still you cant argue that the ITR and s2000 and such have deadly power to fuel efficiency ratios (if such a thing exists)

See, this is the exact misconception that continues to be spread. Hp/L does NOT indicate efficiency at all. A 120 hp/L S2000 gets worse gas mileage than a 66.6 hp/L Corvette. RPM is what makes big hp/L numbers and rpm decreases fuel efficiency.

Another example is a F430. 4.3L V8 making 483hp, but it gets a terrible 13 mpg.

Fuel Efficiency is ONLY determined by how much of the fuel is turned into torque. At an engine's most efficient operating point, only about 37% of the fuel is turned into output. It is making this number higher that matters and nothing else.

[Eleanor]

Originally posted by mikestypes


See, this is the exact misconception that continues to be spread. Hp/L does NOT indicate efficiency at all. A 120 hp/L S2000 gets worse gas mileage than a 66.6 hp/L Corvette. RPM is what makes big hp/L numbers and rpm decreases fuel efficiency.

Another example is a F430. 4.3L V8 making 483hp, but it gets a terrible 13 mpg.

Fuel Efficiency is ONLY determined by how much of the fuel is turned into torque. At an engine's most efficient operating point, only about 37% of the fuel is turned into output. It is making this number higher that matters and nothing else.

Thank you! You and rage have resurrected my faith in this forum!

[Graham_A_M]

^ No kidding. Most people dont know that these extreme RPM's can kill fuel economy. While its nice to have a little 2.0L S2000 that does 250hp, at those stratospheric revs (7k plus) that that little engine has to reach to achieve those numbers; its getting as bad fuel economy as would a (given) higher displacement engine thats producing that at a much lower RPM. Which to me: I'd rather have the latter as its definately more usuable off the track.

My buddies '06 Yamaha R6 sportbike hits 16k rpm before the rev limiter kicks in (redline), and at that speed, even though its producing a whopping 130hp for its little 600cc engine, its sucking incredible amounts of gas. I dont know what the actual fuel economy is at 13k + rpms, but its compairable to a mid-sized car easily. ($15 in gas just to take a (rather aggressive) ride out to Bragg creek.)

[rage2]

Excellent posts. Beat me to it lol. Not many people realize that high revs kill fuel economy because of frictional losses.

If you want a very fuel efficient car, you'd want something that makes good torque at low rpm's, which means large displacement engine, OHV old school motor. DOHC setups has more frictional losses than OHV motors, so they're less efficient (fuel use vs torque output, not HP/L). Next, you'd want light weight, which would require less power to keep the car at speed. Aerodynamics play a huge role in fuel economy at high speeds. Finally, you want a drivetrain that has low losses, which means manual tranny, or DSG (dry clutch versions coming soon). The more gears the better.

Notice how the Corvette fits most of the above? That's why it's so fuel efficient for a sports car.

[H4LFY2nR]

Originally posted by mikestypes


See, this is the exact misconception that continues to be spread. Hp/L does NOT indicate efficiency at all. A 120 hp/L S2000 gets worse gas mileage than a 66.6 hp/L Corvette. RPM is what makes big hp/L numbers and rpm decreases fuel efficiency.

Another example is a F430. 4.3L V8 making 483hp, but it gets a terrible 13 mpg.

Fuel Efficiency is ONLY determined by how much of the fuel is turned into torque. At an engine's most efficient operating point, only about 37% of the fuel is turned into output. It is making this number higher that matters and nothing else.

The Mean Effective Pressure of the engine is what determines its fuel efficency. The maximum achievable MEP is around 1.4MPa for current gasoline combustion engines. F1 engines acheive this MEP, so does the E46 M3CSL's and S2000's engines. You are correct in that the fuel economy is about equal between the corvette and s2000 since the s2000 has to spin faster to make power. But for the purpose of comparing engine technology and efficiency, fuel economy is useless as it accounts for the mass of the vehicle.

[Graham_A_M]

I remember reading about when Ferrari (or was it Porsche) that did some initial testing *years* ago, and the amount of energy (fuel) needed to propel any given object (either a car/truck/bike/RV) past 120 kph goes up EXPONENTIALLY, not linearly (to a degree) like it does up to about 115. So the amount of time it saves with doing 140++ on the highway, may not be worth it as the amount of fuel a vehicle will consume (meaning cost wise) will outwiegh the benefits of getting there faster in many occasions.
.

[Canmorite]

Sports cars aren't built to be efficient, they're meant to blow you away and stimulate your senses. Why the fuck would I want a 200hp fuel efficient car that does 0-60 in 7 seconds? I'd rather ride my bike.

Jeremy Clarkson put it best...

"They are designed to melt ice caps, kill the poor, poison the water table, destroy the ozone layer, decimate indigenous wildlife, recapture the Falkland Islands and turn the entire third world into a huge uninhabitable desert.”

[arian_ma]

Originally posted by rage2
Excellent posts. Beat me to it lol. Not many people realize that high revs kill fuel economy because of frictional losses.

If you want a very fuel efficient car, you'd want something that makes good torque at low rpm's, which means large displacement engine, OHV old school motor. DOHC setups has more frictional losses than OHV motors, so they're less efficient (fuel use vs torque output, not HP/L). Next, you'd want light weight, which would require less power to keep the car at speed. Aerodynamics play a huge role in fuel economy at high speeds. Finally, you want a drivetrain that has low losses, which means manual tranny, or DSG (dry clutch versions coming soon). The more gears the better.

Notice how the Corvette fits most of the above? That's why it's so fuel efficient for a sports car.

Haha that's so true, I don't know why everyone thinks the S2K gets good gas mileage....I get avg of 23-25 MPG driving around town. It sucks because if you want to cruise and you put it in 6th at 90 km/h, you are making about 10 ft.lb...try accelerating with that.