PDA

View Full Version : Ever wonder why a ferrari V8 sounds so different from an American V8?



Atlblkz06
02-17-2009, 02:53 AM
So the Ferrari F430 uses a 4.3L V8. The V8 block configuration is the same as any Ford or GM V8 - 90* V8.

So why does the engine sound so incredibly different?
It seems that the answer is in the crankshaft:

Regular V8s use a cross-plane crankshaft (X) but the more exotic cars use a Flat-plane crankshaft (-)

CROSS PLANE CRANK:
Notice that the nodes are setup in an "X" or "+" configuration. The crank pins are 90* apart.
http://www.icbm.org/erkson/personal/V8Cross.jpg

Considering the illustration.
http://www.autozine.org/technical_school/engine/smooth_counterweight1.jpg
Assume the counter weight in vertical position is heavy enough to balance the crank throw, con-rod and pistons. When the crankshaft rotate 90°, the counter weight is repositioned to the right, but the piston doesn’t go to the left, and the con-rod just partially moves to the left. Only the crank pin moves completely to the left. Now you can see the system is not balanced. The counter weight will generate a net force towards the right.However, for 90° V8, when such a heavy counter weight moves to the right, the piston from another bank will cancel it completely, because their movement are exactly opposed at this moment. (see illustrations below) The same result can be found for the counter weight moving to the left. Therefore 90° cross-plane V8 employs full-weight counter weights can achieve near perfect smoothness.


DISADVANTAGES: The disadvantage of cross-plane V8s is also about the counter weights - not only increase the weight of engine, they also contribute to rotational inertia, thus making the engine less responsive and less revvy, dropping upper rev limit and top-end power. Moreover, the larger counter weights usually requires a larger crankcase to house them, thus raising the height (and more important, center of gravity) of the enigne


FLAT PLANE CRANK:
PC: Notice that the nodes are setup in an "-" or "|" configuration.
The crank pins are 180* apart.

http://www.icbm.org/erkson/personal/V8Flat.jpg

Flat-plane V8 is named according to the shape of the crankshaft, which is in a flat plane. It is very much like two inline-4 engines mated together. In particular, it achieves end-to-end balance because the first piston and last piston of a bank is exactly in the same position, so are the center two pistons. This is just the same as straight-four engines, therefore the sound of flat-plane V8 is usually somewhat like a pair of four-pot engines screaming simultaneously, unlike the rumble-bumble of cross-plane V8s. As both banks run like an inline-4 engine, there is second-order vibration. For a 90° flat-plane V8, the sum of second-order force generated in the 2 banks is - by simple vector analysis - 1.41 times (root-2) of the force generated by each of the inline-4 it consists of. And the direction of vibration is left-right instead of top-down. In other words, while displacement increases 100% compare with the inline-4, the second-order vibration increases just 41%. That makes the flat-plane V8 more refined than an inline-4 although it is not as smooth and quiet as cross-plane V8.

To exotic sports cars, less refinement is not a big problem. Especially they usually employ short stroke and light weight pistons / con-rods, the second-order vibration is greatly reduced.

BORE X STROKE:

To reduce the second order vibrations and to give the engines a high degree of it's rev-happy tendency, the engines are usually over-square. The bore is much greater than the stroke.
An F430 engine has a 3.62" Bore but only a 3.19" stroke. Compare this to a 4.125" bore and an almost equal 4" stroke in the GM LS7.


Awesome video explaining the two:

VIDEO (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpWC0PDhdFo)

Keep in mind that this video is actually an infomercial and is very biased and pro-crossplane since thats what they're trying to sell.




I hope this info helps :cheers:

SOURCE:
http://www.autozine.org/technical_school/engine/smooth4.htm

browningboy7
02-17-2009, 02:54 AM
Good Read.

Dr.G35
02-17-2009, 07:36 AM
thats pretty cool. nice find.

speedminded
02-17-2009, 08:01 AM
"In 1992, Audi left the German DTM racing series after a controversy around the crankshaft design of their V8-powered race cars. After using the road car's cross-plane 90°-crankshaft for several years, they switched to a flat-plane 180° version which they claimed was made by "twisting" a stock part. The scrutineers decided that this would stretch the rules too far."

Look up the Cosworth DFV. 3.0L V8 400hp @ 9,000 RPM's then the DFY version in 1983 had over 500hp @ 11k RPM's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosworth_DFV

ash7
02-17-2009, 08:25 AM
this write up made my brain thirsty for more.


i love learning new things :goodjob: terrific article bro
-jonathan

Evolunchbox
02-17-2009, 01:18 PM
Good read! Reps!

OneSlow5pt0
02-17-2009, 01:24 PM
nice read,i love american V8s...........but i think german V8s sound the best,Audi V8s are my fav.

Dville nismo
02-17-2009, 06:16 PM
Very interesting.:goodjob:

EJ25RUN
02-17-2009, 06:22 PM
"In 1992, Audi left the German DTM racing series after a controversy around the crankshaft design of their V8-powered race cars. After using the road car's cross-plane 90°-crankshaft for several years, they switched to a flat-plane 180° version which they claimed was made by "twisting" a stock part. The scrutineers decided that this would stretch the rules too far."

Look up the Cosworth DFV. 3.0L V8 400hp @ 9,000 RPM's then the DFY version in 1983 had over 500hp @ 11k RPM's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosworth_DFV

That 92 "limo" still couldn't beat the Mercedes AMG which was finally developed to full potential. I think they left the series mid season that year.

EJ25RUN
02-17-2009, 06:47 PM
Speaking of counter weights and whatnot...

Here's something i have never seen in the car world.

The 1993-1995 Ducati Supermono used a "dummy connecting rod" that acted as a second piston. It overcame vibration from the horizontally placed 550cc Single cylinder.

http://www.motoliam.com/photos/ML1774.jpg

I saw the bike in person in Italy *thats my picture*

Pierre Terblanche best ever design in my opionion.
http://i429.photobucket.com/albums/qq16/EJ25RUN/110.jpg?t=1221879326

StraightSix
02-17-2009, 07:19 PM
I think one of the coolest things about the Ducati bike engines is the use of Desodromic cams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desmodromic). Since learning more about cam design, the Ducati valve train has really piqued my interest.

Yeah...I just used piqued correctly on an internet forum....I *am* a dork.

speedminded
02-17-2009, 08:17 PM
Speaking of counter weights and whatnot...

Here's something i have never seen in the car world.

The 1993-1995 Ducati Supermono used a "dummy connecting rod" that acted as a second piston. It overcame vibration from the horizontally placed 550cc Single cylinder.

http://www.motoliam.com/photos/ML1774.jpg

I saw the bike in person in Italy *thats my picture*

Pierre Terblanche best ever design in my opionion.
http://i429.photobucket.com/albums/qq16/EJ25RUN/110.jpg?t=1221879326That is insane...but ingenious none the less. :ninja:

EJ25RUN
02-17-2009, 09:59 PM
That is insane...but ingenious none the less. :ninja:
Crazy little invention and way ahead of its time in terms of weight, speed, and price.

One of Cycle World's classic issues. (That's right $30,000 in 1993! and about $50,000+ if you find one for sale today)

It only made 80 hp and had a 145 mph top speed but the package could lap a track faster than the best bikes of the day.

Cycle World Article on the SuperMono (http://www.cycleworld.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=480)

http://www.cycleworld.com/assets/image/2007/W38/091720071445492319.jpghttp://www.ducati.at/ducati/history/images/1992SupermonoPrinzip.gif

http://www.motorcyclespecs.co.za/Gallery/Ducati%20Supermono%2093.jpg


Looks almost as good as the Tamburini jewel.
http://www.ibuyducatis.com/pic7.jpg

Atlblkz06
02-18-2009, 12:25 AM
Yea! I think I've seen that before. It actually makes sense. There is no other way to overcome those vibrations.

Now I was thinking - what if they could use electromagnets for counterweights and create "dynamic counterweights". That way they could detect and create the counterweight forces electronically instead of lugging that weight around all the time.
Nice picture btw!

Pique away my friends, this thread is turning into dork central haha.

speedminded
02-18-2009, 02:10 AM
Yea! I think I've seen that before. It actually makes sense. There is no other way to overcome those vibrations.

Now I was thinking - what if they could use electromagnets for counterweights and create "dynamic counterweights". That way they could detect and create the counterweight forces electronically instead of lugging that weight around all the time.
Nice picture btw!

Pique away my friends, this thread is turning into dork central haha.The electromagnetic theory definitely sounds feasible...but what doesn't at 3am? haha!

Atlblkz06
02-18-2009, 02:20 AM
I was tired earlier today and took a 4 hour nap. Now I'm wide awake lol

EJ25RUN
02-19-2009, 05:18 PM
Yea! I think I've seen that before. It actually makes sense. There is no other way to overcome those vibrations.

Now I was thinking - what if they could use electromagnets for counterweights and create "dynamic counterweights". That way they could detect and create the counterweight forces electronically instead of lugging that weight around all the time.
Nice picture btw!

Pique away my friends, this thread is turning into dork central haha.

Give me pictures. I am a visual learner. :D