How do car manufacturers decide on engine configurations?

[autogyro]

In the very early 50s, BRM started out with a 1500cc Compressor V16, obviously with drawings stolen from Auto Union as a war-whatever,
but how do you consider when you decide to build a contraption like that?

I do not believe that any British company would need to steal any drawings on engines from any German or Austrian source.
After all, British aero engines were streets ahead of any from the Axis sphere.
Well engineered maybe in the Teutonic tradition but way behind in concept.
It is a difference reflected in the character traits of racing drivers.
British drivers and those from previous British colonies (even to a degree the Americans) have a gentlemanly attitude to motor sport that is completely different to the ruthless attitude of those like Schumaker et all.

[WhiteBlue]

In the very early 50s, BRM started out with a 1500cc Compressor V16, obviously with drawings stolen from Auto Union as a war-whatever,
but how do you consider when you decide to build a contraption like that?

I do not believe that any British company would need to steal any drawings on engines from any German or Austrian source.
After all, British aero engines were streets ahead of any from the Axis sphere.
Well engineered maybe in the Teutonic tradition but way behind in concept.
It is a difference reflected in the character traits of racing drivers.
British drivers and those from previous British colonies (even to a degree the Americans) have a gentlemanly attitude to motor sport that is completely different to the ruthless attitude of those like Schumaker et all.

Let me join this off topic talk with two remarks relating to the bolded items:

Auto Union never designed a 1.5L V16 according to my research.

I thought that German engineers build the first jet engined fighters and bombers that actually fought in WWII. And jets were undoubtedly superior in performance and more advanced in concept compared to piston engines.

[DaveKillens]

In the very early 50s, BRM started out with a 1500cc Compressor V16, obviously with drawings stolen from Auto Union as a war-whatever,
but how do you consider when you decide to build a contraption like that?

That's a good point. My previous post was in direct relation to the original question, which I assume is about major car manufacturers in this current era of technology.

Geez, a 1.5 liter V-16, that would be sweet to have under the hood, being a tech freak and all that. But that engine configuration was driven by the needs of that day, when the frame was just that, a frame, and when the technology of the day allowed the pursuit of multi-cylinder engines in the pursuit of power.

Taking into account this is a 1.5 liter engine from racing heritage and in the early 50's, I have to assume this engine was designed for the voiturette class, represented magnificently by this car, the Alfa Romeo 158/159 Alfetta, a car with a genuine heritage. This car had a 1.5 liter inline 8, and judging by the dimensions under the hood and where the frame members run, allowed lots of room for the engine.


But for today's manufacturers, emission regulations, styling demands, requirement for FWD and other packaging demands force powerplant engineers to mold the configuration.

[autogyro]

I thought that German engineers build the first jet engined fighters and bombers that actually fought in WWII. And jets were undoubtedly superior in performance and more advanced in concept compared to piston engines.[/quote]


Whittle was working on a jet engine at around the same time as Junkers and others in Germany.
Both the German and the British jet engine designs were used politicaly and supplied to America and Russia in deals that have continued to distort technical history ever since.
I tend to think that both the German and British engines developed over the same period, both replaced but were held back by piston engined technology for years.
Much the same as hybrid and full electric technology is being activly held back by vested interest today in obsolete ic technology.
Going back to the thread topic. This is the main and totaly corrupt reason that decides on the engine 'type' and configeration decided by car manufacturers.
The decision is used to manipulate the market to maintain their established out of date status quo, so as to keep the money coming in.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Talking of small capacity, high numbered cylinders.
Would somthing along the lines of a Lotus elise (lightweight) with its alumium frame allowing a decent amount of freedom with engine mounts and configuration etc.
not be a perfect car to use for this very purpose/

Use an engine that is small yet has many cylinders*

*I seem to remember Yamaha made a V8 that was very small indeed and pushed out around 450 bhp from 2 or 2.5 litres. Cant find nothing online just yet but it may have an F1 bloodline

Would the cost be that prohibitive that it would not make money?
I think firstly it would be an instant classic if they kept the handling charateristics of the Elise.
Secondly it would have an engine the americans wouldnt put their noses up to.
Thirdly the engine would not weigh that much more than the current Toyota sourced four.
And fourth, engine note!

For the sake of an extra 10 grand i cannot believe it hasnt been done yet!

[WhiteBlue]

Whittle's design never made it to a finished WWII weapon level while Messerschmidt actually made several hundreds of Jet fighters starting production in 1942.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYXd60D_kgQ[/youtube]

Ironically ex Boing engineers in Washington managed to rebuild this historic plane. Practically all surviving air frames were transported to the States so that there was too little left here to do such a magnificent job.

On Topic: I see valid reasons for the recent petrol engine trend to less cylinders. You get lower weight and typically better milage from down sized engines. Two technical innovations will even accelerate the trend IMO. Variable geometry turbo loaders and high pressure direct injection.

[autogyro]

The Gloster meteor was in service against the V1 flying bombs in small numbers.
There are no reported combats with the ME262 or any of the other jet or rocket aircraft in service with the German air force but it may have happened.
The meteor had a better performance than the ME262 and seemed a bit more reliable. Of course comparisons are difficult as the ME262 did not continue in development like the meteor. It was used by the Americans to develop their first generation sub sonic military aircraft and of course the podded engine concept and laminar wing of all their later airliners and strategic bombers.
IMO the buried engines in the 500 mph Comet was a better way to go but was destroyed by accident and the Americans.
I have completed a full study on the ME163 Komet, which I consider the greatest interceptor fighter ever designed.
The rocket engine performance and the aerodynamics of that aircraft make F1 current aero look like boys playing with model aeroplanes.

[xpensive]

The ME262 with its BMW engines was way ahead of its time and could, if properly used as a fighter, have had a serioius impact.

On topic; When Porsche release the 3.0 I-4, it had the same power 240 Hp, as the 4.5 V8 had when presented in the 70s. Think about it.

[xxChrisxx]

The German jet design by von Ohain used was axial flow (what modern jets are), which is technically superior in almost every way to Whittles proposed design to the RAF. However Whittle realised that axial flow jets required materials stronger than were available to him at the time. This is why he put forward the centrifugal type jet engine.

The result was that German jets required a rebuild after almost every flight, when Whittle got his design fully developed it flew almost maintainence free for hundereds if not thousands of hours.

He also proposed a jet to RAF in the early 30's (I think) and they laughed the idea out of the room. It was only after it was clear that the Germans were developing the technology and it showed promise that they put their full weight behind the project. For years Whittle funded it himself.

If only the RAF had not been stuck up their own ends, who knows what would have happened.



EDIT: To be on topic, as people have said they decide based on specific needs for the job and cost.

[xxChrisxx]

I have completed a full study on the ME163 Komet, which I consider the greatest interceptor fighter ever designed.

The Komet was... interesting. What on earth makes you think it's the best interceptor though?

Once the rockets ran out, it was a fat glider. It had a bizarre way of attacking as it just flew staight past the enemy, such was the speed difference. It probably made enemy pilots crash from laughing too hard.

I'm kidding, it's an quality peice on innovative design, I think it does show a bit of desperation on the Germans part. They started to come up with all sorts of wacky innovate stuff towards the end of the war. Some of which (like this) were really impressive.


The Electric lighting is probably my favourite (so im going to say its the best) interceptor. Officially the top speed is mach 2, but they have been clocked at mach 3. Seriously impressive climb rates, high ceiling. Faaaaaantastic.

[autogyro]

The lightning was probably the greatest military aircraft ever built.
The design was based in major part on the combat requirements first recognised in the Komet rocket fighter and this is why I place the ME163 at the peak of such thinking.
Maximum speed and climb rate with the sole task of intercepting enemy aircraft at high altitude in the fastest time possible.
The trade off in the Komet was no fuel at all for the return flight and in the Lightning a very low endurance that demanded a very careful flight plan.
Both aircraft demanded the very best of piloting skills and I do not believe this level of skill had been met either before these aircraft were in service or since.
I may be taken to task by the moderators but I do think this information is relevent to the thread topic.
To me at least it defines the levels of technology needed to place an aircraft or race car at the peak of technology. I do not believe the current controls over the powertrains in F1 cars meet this level, current F1 is a control formula (compare it to multi roll combat aircraft). All the discusion of different engine capacities and configurations is irelevent unless the regulations are made less restrictive and the focus is on fuel limits. Just like the Komet and the Lightning.

[Mysticf1]

How about the British design (sorry i can't remember its name/designation i'm sure autogyro will know) that used both jet and rocket power...it had un believable climb rates but was never put into service due to the lightning getting the contracts.

[RH1300S]

I find the ME262 a very beautiful thing......lovely proportions and lines

[autogyro]

How about the British design (sorry i can't remember its name/designation i'm sure autogyro will know) that used both jet and rocket power...it had un believable climb rates but was never put into service due to the lightning getting the contracts.

You probably mean the Saunders Roe SR53 that was a mixed rocket/jet power plant aircraft and fully proven ready for RAF service. It was cut in the 1950s Duncan Sands cuts, that killed so many superior British aviation designs.
There were many other jet/rocket aircraft including WW2 German rocket assisted take off designs in all aircraft roles.

[autogyro]

I find the ME262 a very beautiful thing......lovely proportions and lines

+1 Although I was fortunate to be involved a little with the Hawker Hunter, which IMO is the prettiest fighter.