Mi 32
  • Help
Page 1 of 2 12 Last
Results 1 to 25 of 30

Thread: Mi 32

  1. #1
    Fellow Frogger! Roland's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    727

    Default Mi 32

    A long while ago someone took 2 203 engines and literally bolted them together to make a V8. I think it's still running somewhere in Victoria.

    Now the release of the Holden 6.0L V8 engine with a massive 260Kw prompts me to think:

    Why didn't they just take the Mi16 engine as the master pattern and make a V8.
    Imagine from 3.81L you would get at least 236Kw without even trying. (Mi16 produces 118Kw)
    You would have an engine which is a smooth as silk, quiet, economical and spins to 6 to 7K revs with ease.

    How can a 6L engine be justified when a 20 year old design provides the base for a far superior result.

    Advertisement


    Roland

    PS - anyone got 2 Mi16 engines they dont want - I wanna give it a try
    Last edited by Roland; 3rd December 2005 at 12:36 PM.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    71

    Default

    Nice idea but it would be bloody expensive.

    Radical fused to Suzuki Hayabusa engines together to form a 2.6L V8 for the SR8. Each 1.3L 4 cylinder was producing around 230hp from memory but when combined, the engine produces around 380hp @ 10,000rpm! Still bloody impressive though!

    Though you can buy a crate engine from them for 20,000 pounds!

    I get it just to hear a V8 at 10,000rpm!

    Cheers

    Alex

  3. #3
    1000+ Posts cruiserman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    1,290

    Default

    Ah yes good time to bash the local product on a biased forum, very brave that. However 260kw is sitting there with the motor hardly above idle incredibly low stress and thus quite fuel efficient as well as long living. Small modifications to the chip would see easily 320kw as the Gen111 can get out over 300. 2 Mi motors grafted together and spinning up to 7000 and beyond perhaps would not have such a relaxed beach side lifesytle and would not produce double the output of the single engine.
    Neil
    '94 405 SRBT

    '82 CX 2400 Pallas 5spd

    '77 CX 2400 Pallas 4spd manual Import

    '76 CX Super

    '05 WL Statesman

    '92 HZJ80 Landcruiser

  4. #4
    1000+ Posts
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Posts
    6,665

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cruiserman
    Ah yes good time to bash the local product on a biased forum, very brave that.
    Settle down Neil. We're not all biased. You've never seen a Holden bashing post from me! Why, my wife even drives one!

    Stu


    2003 PEUGEOT 206 GTi

  5. #5
    1000+ Posts Wildebeest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Perth Western Australia
    Posts
    2,705

    Default Mi 32.

    Roland,
    Coupling two 4cyl engines in V fashion should with lateral? thinking give double the horses.

    Maserati, with their beautiful and successful 6 cyl 250 F racing car in the 1950's tried this by turning the 6 into a V12. Because of frictional losses the output made the performance inferior to their 6. [See the July '05 "Motor Sport" mag for a great story].

  6. #6
    1075.6 SamR's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,392

    Default

    It is possible to improve on the output of the 2 engines combined. When TVR built a V12 using 2 of their straight sixes for the Speed 12, it made over double the horsepower But I'm not sure how different the inlet manifold design was etc. The first time they put it on their engine dyno, rated to 1000hp, it broke the input shaft to the dyno
    2005 Renaultsport Clio 182 Cup
    1989 205 Gti - Sold


    "This year, I invested in pumpkins. They've been going up the whole month of October and I got a feeling they're going to peak right around January. Then, bang! That's when I'll cash in." - Homer Simpson

  7. #7
    Fellow Frogger! WRCPUG's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Glen Iris, Melbourne
    Posts
    1,035

    Default

    Now the release of the Holden 6.0L V8 engine with a massive 260Kw prompts me to think:
    im pretty sure the LS2 are 290+kw in standard trim. With a massive 600nm of torque.

    In the higher state of tune as found in the Z06 Vette the LS7 i think its called they are about 500hp.


    They are fantastic motors
    PEUGEOT 306 GTi6 (1997-1999 HYBRID)
    105.4kw (141HP) ATW
    2:09 Phillip Island (Toyo Street Tyres)

    2001 YAMAHA YZF-R6
    119HP

    1993 MITSUBISHI 3000GT Twin Turbo
    300BHP
    STOCK-14.006 @97.4mph HEATHCOTE
    STOCK-1:15 CALDER Long Circuit (Stock Street Tyres + Stock Pads :banghead )
    (For Sale)

  8. #8
    Fellow Frogger! 505 to the max's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Newcastle
    Posts
    380

    Default

    Cost would be the limiting factor wouldn't it? It doens't take much in the way of tooling to change a 5.7l V8 to a 6l V8. Two XU9J4's stuck together is an engineering challenge, hence more expensive.

    Unlike some, I am very biased and will never consider a 250kw 6l V8 as impressive. It takes two things to achieve the aforementioned target: more materials and less time to develop it. Typically American and I can't see them changing anytime soon.
    _____________________________________________
    505GR/GTi turbo: For sale. Cheap rally car!
    1989 405Mi16 (RIP)
    1983 505STi (RIP)
    1982 505GR (RIP)

  9. #9
    1075.6 SamR's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,392

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WRCPUG
    im pretty sure the LS2 are 290+kw in standard trim. With a massive 600nm of torque.

    In the higher state of tune as found in the Z06 Vette the LS7 i think its called they are about 500hp.


    They are fantastic motors
    Holden is introducing a different 6L V8 for the other Commodes (I read in Friday's Drive a few weeks ago that it's based on or is a truck engine, can't remember which) and keeping the LS2 exclusive to the HSVs as incentive to upgrade to an HSV

    The engine in the Z06 is a 7L V8
    2005 Renaultsport Clio 182 Cup
    1989 205 Gti - Sold


    "This year, I invested in pumpkins. They've been going up the whole month of October and I got a feeling they're going to peak right around January. Then, bang! That's when I'll cash in." - Homer Simpson

  10. #10
    Fellow Frogger! WRCPUG's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Glen Iris, Melbourne
    Posts
    1,035

    Default

    Unlike some, I am very biased and will never consider a 250kw 6l V8 as impressive. It takes two things to achieve the aforementioned target: more materials and less time to develop it. Typically American and I can't see them changing anytime soon.
    So i guess the most powerful N/A v8 in the world the AMg 6.3 V8 is not impressive and has no engineering behind it?

    http://www.mbnz.org/news/news.asp?id=295




    For a MASS produced engine the Chevvy LS1 and LS2 are pretty good motors...the bottom line is the $$$ the company can make. Sure i dont like pushrods but you cannot deny the Chevvie V8s are damn good motors and makesome stupid power with really really simple bolt ons using outdated technology.

    Remember they do use pushrods to keep the weight down and to make the motor more compact than if they had of used a quad cam setup.


    Holden is introducing a different 6L V8 for the other Commodes (I read in Friday's Drive a few weeks ago that it's based on or is a truck engine, can't remember which) and keeping the LS2 exclusive to the HSVs as incentive to upgrade to an HSV
    Ahh i see.
    PEUGEOT 306 GTi6 (1997-1999 HYBRID)
    105.4kw (141HP) ATW
    2:09 Phillip Island (Toyo Street Tyres)

    2001 YAMAHA YZF-R6
    119HP

    1993 MITSUBISHI 3000GT Twin Turbo
    300BHP
    STOCK-14.006 @97.4mph HEATHCOTE
    STOCK-1:15 CALDER Long Circuit (Stock Street Tyres + Stock Pads :banghead )
    (For Sale)

  11. #11
    Fellow Frogger! Roland's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    727

    Default

    An interesting debate - I'm glad I started it.

  12. #12
    Fellow Frogger! 505 to the max's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Newcastle
    Posts
    380

    Default

    I shold have been more specific. The basis of my comment was that it's not something I'd consider as any major accomplishment to achieve a relatively modest power output from such a large capacity engine. Whilst I admit that 290 odd kw is a lot (apologies, I think that my initial 250kw figure was incorrect), it's not a lot compared with the equivalent German, Italian or even Japanese engines of similar displacement.

    I can understand the reasons behind it: cheaper, lower stresses therefor longer lasting etc, but it's also a low tech and small minded approach. Until they incorporate overhead cams it is essentially a 60's era block. If they switched to OHC and reduced the displacement they would increase the engine's space efficiency and increase the output.

    I think that the concept of twin 'buried' cams is laughable. This was in the planning stages for an upcoming Chev motor, although I read of this quite some time ago so it may be reality by now. I sometimes get the impression that they're resisting technology to the bitter end. Is it a case of desparate nostalgia?

    Here's a thought: an S2000 is the most power productive production atmo engine in existence (per litre of course). If the same techniques were used to design and build such an enormous American boat anchor, think of the potential for performance.

    In essence, I just can't understand why such outdated technology is being touted as a benchmark by advertisers and manufacturers, and people automatically believe it.
    _____________________________________________
    505GR/GTi turbo: For sale. Cheap rally car!
    1989 405Mi16 (RIP)
    1983 505STi (RIP)
    1982 505GR (RIP)

  13. #13
    Banned orestes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Sunshine Coast
    Posts
    4,520

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 505 to the max
    I shold have been more specific. The basis of my comment was that it's not something I'd consider as any major accomplishment to achieve a relatively modest power output from such a large capacity engine. Whilst I admit that 290 odd kw is a lot (apologies, I think that my initial 250kw figure was incorrect), it's not a lot compared with the equivalent German, Italian or even Japanese engines of similar displacement.

    I can understand the reasons behind it: cheaper, lower stresses therefor longer lasting etc, but it's also a low tech and small minded approach. Until they incorporate overhead cams it is essentially a 60's era block. If they switched to OHC and reduced the displacement they would increase the engine's space efficiency and increase the output.

    I think that the concept of twin 'buried' cams is laughable. This was in the planning stages for an upcoming Chev motor, although I read of this quite some time ago so it may be reality by now. I sometimes get the impression that they're resisting technology to the bitter end. Is it a case of desparate nostalgia?

    Here's a thought: an S2000 is the most power productive production atmo engine in existence (per litre of course). If the same techniques were used to design and build such an enormous American boat anchor, think of the potential for performance.

    In essence, I just can't understand why such outdated technology is being touted as a benchmark by advertisers and manufacturers, and people automatically believe it.

    Ah yes the S2000 engine produces 120hp per litre, and let us not forget that if we take into account power per litre the S2000 has more power per litre then a 360 Modena but if it's so hugely sucseful, and easy to do, why has honda, or anyone else for that matter, besides Suzuki (which doesn't really count) not yet released a more powerful engine

    Whilst it is exceptionaly well engineerd, it is also pushing it's limits, and is a very highly strung motor, the kind of eficency it has in producing power does not come easily for an engine designed for a road going car. We may be able to push more out of an engine that may require a rebuild every 10 thousand km's, but this isn't so easy when designing an engine that is meant to last, not to mention the lack of any real form of tourqe seen in larger engines hence once again the advantage of larger displacment engines. In the end it really isn't about how many ponies you can fit inside the smalest space unless ofcourse your going to use forced induction which again isn't really fair to compare
    Last edited by orestes; 5th December 2005 at 05:11 AM.

  14. #14
    1000+ Posts
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Posts
    6,665

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 505 to the max
    I shold have been more specific. The basis of my comment was that it's not something I'd consider as any major accomplishment to achieve a relatively modest power output from such a large capacity engine. Whilst I admit that 290 odd kw is a lot (apologies, I think that my initial 250kw figure was incorrect), it's not a lot compared with the equivalent German, Italian or even Japanese engines of similar displacement...Here's a thought: an S2000 is the most power productive production atmo engine in existence (per litre of course). If the same techniques were used to design and build such an enormous American boat anchor, think of the potential for performance.
    Yes, and if it was 390kW, you'd probably start the line about how Holdens don't handle. THAT is what I meant by bias. I'm not against well deserved criticism. Commodores aren't my cup of char, but some people love 'em.

    Obviously it's a unit cost thing, and the motor has to fit in to the US market as well. Chevy customers don't want a complex engine that Joe from Idaho can't understand, whether that's right or wrong, and GM are in the business of selling bread and butter cars. A M-B 5 litre V8 would be about 3 or 4 times as much to build as a GM capacity equivalent.

    Just to give you a ballpark figure, I got a quote to purchase a factory 3.0 V6 complete short engine for an Alfa about three years ago - $20,000... Say, $30K complete with heads etc? The cost of a mid-range Commodore in 2002.

    Stuey


    2003 PEUGEOT 206 GTi

  15. #15
    Tadpole
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    kelowna, BC, Canada
    Posts
    15

    Default market specifics

    not to defend my neighbours too strongly ( we all have our crosses to bear ) but there's a few market specific things that havent been brought up.

    emission regs in N.America are ridiculous, as are things like the CAFE rating (corporate average fuel economy), and no premium licensing fees for displacement vs usage. A lot of the motors used in Europe, and Aus simply wont meet the N.american regulations, even when new. ( and dont get me going on "are the regulations right or wrong!!" ) Generally, small, hyper motors, with high compression, and /or turbos run foul of the NOx emissions, while larger, high performance engines suffer for mileage, and CO/CO2 emissions. The US solution..home sales being their main target market...has been to under-design things specifically to meet those regulations with the express intent of making it easy to increase the output with bolt on aftermarket parts. thus, the corporate numbers toe the line, and jo-average can get his 350-400 HP pickup truck by speding a few sunday afternoon bolting in an intake, performance chip, transgo kit, etc. that you guys in Aus ( and other markets) get the same models, but not the aftermarket support just doesnt cross their minds. ( or is it their pocket books?)

    Also consider the number of miles driven, and driver care vs maintenance. Unlike the corporations, and their cars, N.American DRIVERS are some of the most under regulated on the planet. For most people there are no yearly inspections, no emissions testing, no driver retesting, minimal driver training, etc. Cars very often see little to no maintainance for 40k-50k km, but are driven longer distances than almost anywhere else you care to name ( I personally do 40k-50k km a year, and I live within walking distance of my work) At the same time, the manufacturers are being pushed for longer, and longer warranty periods, and facing more and moe litigation for things that ( to my mind) are actually owner/driver error. again, the result is under engineered, solid, long lived systems. eg: my service truck is a 1977 Chev 2 1/4 ton flat deck that saw minimal maintanance as a inter-city fleet vehicle, yet, with 380,000 miles on the odo ( and unknown hours idling to run a hydraulic pto system) it still purrs along just fine. I converted the monster to propane just last september, and with my version of maintenance will probably last me reliably for another 25 years, but I got it dirt cheap because the company that HAD owned it was finding it unreliable....due to poor maintenance. The new truck to duplicate it was $65,000 Point is, at 7500lbs empty, and ~11,000lbs legal gross it NEEDS a big mill...a 5.7 is just barely enough, no matter WHAT technology you throw at it. a smaller, techy motor wouldnt have lasted, let alone another 25 years.

    3rd point - maintenance. a lot of what you see is designed for fleet use, and / or limited mechanical equipment in 'other markets', and as such is built for easy maintenance.( you guys in Aus get ripped off on this point, 'cause to the corporate weenies, you're lumped in with places like central africa, as 'other markets") pretty easy to strip heads off of a cam-in-block V6, or V8, and do a top end overhaul. Not so easy to do it on a belt driven, 32 valve, quad cam V8, with VVT, and micro tolerances to self defenestration. Do you even get the 4.2L DOHC 32 valve NorthStar GM ( Holden) motors in Aus? How about Guildstrand Camero's, or Callaway C8's, and Callaway Corvette's? ( those would be the GM equivalent to the AMG Benz's mentioned earlier in this thread) The Viper V10 is archaic in a car, but in 1 to 3 ton trucks and motorhomes, (where its also found in this market, along with the ford Triton V10) its about par, and it pukes a lot less crud than the diesels we get here!

    As I started out saying - not trying to defend them: just pointing out some things that hadnt been brought up.

    chris - hoping this isnt going to be too inflamatory.

  16. #16
    1000+ Posts PeterT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Castle Hill, Sydney
    Posts
    7,553

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 505 to the max

    I can understand the reasons behind it: cheaper, lower stresses therefor longer lasting etc, but it's also a low tech and small minded approach. Until they incorporate overhead cams it is essentially a 60's era block. If they switched to OHC and reduced the displacement they would increase the engine's space efficiency and increase the output.
    I think you should do some research and maybe open one up. They bear almost no resemblence to a 60's engine other than the fact they're a V8. They have very clever chamber/piston crown technology, along with roller cams etc. The fact they are pushrod is irrelevent.

    The only reason a modern Chev V8 doesn't "launch" is the ridiculous long gearing they have.

    '92 205 Mi16
    '90 Mi16x4

  17. #17
    VIP Sponsor
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Posts
    9,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roland
    A long while ago someone took 2 203 engines and literally bolted them together to make a V8. I think it's still running somewhere in Victoria.

    Now the release of the Holden 6.0L V8 engine with a massive 260Kw prompts me to think:

    Why didn't they just take the Mi16 engine as the master pattern and make a V8.
    Imagine from 3.81L you would get at least 236Kw without even trying. (Mi16 produces 118Kw)
    You would have an engine which is a smooth as silk, quiet, economical and spins to 6 to 7K revs with ease.

    How can a 6L engine be justified when a 20 year old design provides the base for a far superior result.

    Roland

    PS - anyone got 2 Mi16 engines they dont want - I wanna give it a try

    The 203 V8 was a lot more involved than simply bolting the two engines together, it used a specially made crankcase.
    It has sat idle since the early 1970s and is presently in the motor racing museum at Philip Island.
    Graham

  18. #18
    1000+ Posts
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,980

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by orestes
    Ah yes the S2000 engine produces 120hp per litre, and let us not forget that if we take into account power per litre the S2000 has more power per litre then a 360 Modena but if it's so hugely sucseful, and easy to do, why has honda, or anyone else for that matter, besides Suzuki (which doesn't really count) not yet released a more powerful engine

    Whilst it is exceptionaly well engineerd, it is also pushing it's limits, and is a very highly strung motor, the kind of eficency it has in producing power does not come easily for an engine designed for a road going car. We may be able to push more out of an engine that may require a rebuild every 10 thousand km's, but this isn't so easy when designing an engine that is meant to last, not to mention the lack of any real form of tourqe seen in larger engines hence once again the advantage of larger displacment engines. In the end it really isn't about how many ponies you can fit inside the smalest space unless ofcourse your going to use forced induction which again isn't really fair to compare
    I doubt we will see the likes of the S2000 very often, because at the end of the day, people like a bit of torque in their daily intake of automotive pleasure.

  19. #19
    Banned orestes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Sunshine Coast
    Posts
    4,520

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sergetov
    I doubt we will see the likes of the S2000 very often, because at the end of the day, people like a bit of torque in their daily intake of automotive pleasure.

    this issue was sort of adressed for the US market where they have the 220nm 2.2l version, the problem is though that when they increased its displacement they lost out on its ability to rev out, as the us version only revs out to 8000rpm (in comparsion to near enough 10000rpm) as well as not adding to the 240hp the 2l has

    The question is, would you sacrafice 2000rpm for an added 20nm of tourqe, I probably wouldn't
    Last edited by orestes; 5th December 2005 at 06:38 PM.

  20. #20
    Fellow Frogger!
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Gundaroo (near Canberra)
    Posts
    214

    Default

    give me an S2000 2L engine over a GM v8 ANYDAY! omg that would be good in a pug. im not agianst GMv8's, but i wouldn't own one. 95% of my friends drive them
    Lets just say we have a few pugs about!

  21. #21
    Budding Architect ???? pugrambo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Parkes - N.S.W - Australia - Earth
    Posts
    12,283

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GRAHAM WALLIS
    The 203 V8 was a lot more involved than simply bolting the two engines together, it used a specially made crankcase.
    It has sat idle since the early 1970s and is presently in the motor racing museum at Philip Island.
    Graham

    403 wasn't it ?

    jim hawkins i think was the bloke

    a few daimler powered 203's were around though and didn't perform too badly
    3 x '78 604 SL

    1 x 2018 3008

    1 x 2000 Citroen XM,

    1 x '98 306 GTi6 sadly sold

    1 x secret project

    1 x '98 406 STDT troop carrier and i don't care if it stinks, i don't sniff it's arse Death by wank tank

    1 x '99 406SV 5spd wagon, time to burn more fuel

    1 x 1994 605 SV3.0

  22. #22
    Banned orestes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Sunshine Coast
    Posts
    4,520

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hipcrostino
    give me an S2000 2L engine over a GM v8 ANYDAY! omg that would be good in a pug. im not agianst GMv8's, but i wouldn't own one. 95% of my friends drive them

    They do the S2000 conversion to civics in japan these days fairly regulary.

  23. #23
    Fellow Frogger! Cubits's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    555

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by orestes
    The question is, would you sacrafice 2000rpm for an added 20nm of tourqe, I probably wouldn't
    I don't think it's that simple, the 2.2L has a lot more low down torque, despite the peak only being 20Nm higher. The result is a faster car, so i would definitely prefer that to having to wring a 2L out to 10k.
    1987 205 GTI - Graphite Grey - 206k km's
    1988 MR2 Supercharger - Mica Blue - 114k km's

  24. #24
    VIP Sponsor
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Posts
    9,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pugrambo
    403 wasn't it ?

    jim hawkins i think was the bloke

    a few daimler powered 203's were around though and didn't perform too badly
    Jim Hawker, 1966 403 one of the last off the line and specially modified to fit the V8.
    Car, engine and driver (I think) all still exist.
    Graham

  25. #25
    Fellow Frogger! Roland's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    727

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GRAHAM WALLIS
    Jim Hawker, 1966 403 one of the last off the line and specially modified to fit the V8.
    Car, engine and driver (I think) all still exist.
    Graham
    My memory is that it's a 403 with the 2x203 v8.
    I don't know why 203 engines were used rather than 403 engines except the 403 engines would be physically bigger.

Page 1 of 2 12 Last

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •