Review: 2L VS. 2.5L Engine

Some background information: having driven the 2L Mazda 3 and 2.5L Mazda 6 (unfortunately both automatic) I’m going to put together a little review on my impressions on these two motors.

Both of them feel similar. Responsive, rev happy, very linear power delivery. Both are smooth and make a great sound - all in all a great partner for the spirited driver while still delivering excellent, proven real world fuel economy.

Power Delivery

In the 2.5L, you have usuable torque from 2500RPM all the way to the redline. A very healthy boost of torque comes on at 3000RPM with this engine and it feels strong + responsive for a 4 cylinder. Power is steady and linear all the way up to the redline and throttle response is very good especially at high RPM.

The 2L engine is very linear, more so then the 2.5 but it needs to be revved harder to get going as Max torque is at 4000RPM rather then 3250. For a 2L, there is an impressive amount of torque below 4000RPM. This engine is easily more enjoyable to operate then just about all of its competition. but quite frankly, I would not buy the 2L with an automatic.

Transmission Tuning And Gearing

Both engines seem to use the same transmission and gearing, except the 2L has a slightly shorter final drive ratio to make up for the smaller displacement. During my experience with both cars, I found the 2.5L to be a far better match to the SKYACTIV transmission, especially when downshifting which emits a beautiful throttle blip. In the 2L, flooring the gas pedal either gives you not enough or too much power every single time. Since the 2.5L has so much torque all over the rev range, all you have to do is lazily drop a gear or two and you are already in the powerband. The shift points are excellent and more useable out in the real world especially if you are a spirited driver. Due to all the torque at 3000rpm, I feel like the transmission shuffled through the gears a lot smoother and more effectively without needing to use much throttle at all. The car really takes off revving to 3000RPM and the gearing always keeps the engine on boil. The drivetrain tuning is simply better sorted with the larger motor.

Engine NVH

Both engines make a lovely sound and are very smooth, although the 2.5L has balancing shafts yet is just as good as the 2L. I will admit that The 2.5 is simply one of the best sounding 4 cylinders I’ve ever heard. It will happily rev to 6000RPM, but it is a long stroke piston design meaning the engine sounds a little thrashy and unrefined near Redline - it prefers to stay in the midrange. You can hear and feel the engine breathe as you rev it out emitting a snorty large displacement growl + a sweet brassy exhaust note. The Engine makes a wonderful sound from the front and sides of the car due to the extra displacement and it sounds amazing revving to 4000RPM on the highway, so much lovely engine sound yet the exhaust actually flows and can be heard.

Fuel Economy

For a reserved, slow driver the 2L will get slightly better MPG, but I find that with any sort of spirited driving or passing the 2L engines fuel economy goes down the drain big-time. Max-torque at a usable real-world RPM = better efficiency The more torque the engine makes at a lower RPM, the less throttle needs to be used while also equaling in more effortless passing power. it's a win-win situation.

Verdict

Both are truly great engines, but if you enjoy driving spirited or just want some passing power the 2.5L will be the better choice. Even for the very reserved driver, expect little to no penalty in efficiency by choosing the larger engine. Whatever slight disadvantage will be greatly offset by the effortless torque available on tap.

Bump

Blerg

Marine Diesel Engines History – Universal, Volvo, Perkins, Westerbeke, Yanmar

Marine engines are mostly Yanmars in newer boats. But in the brokerage market, plenty of yachts have Perkins, Westerbekes, Universals, or Volvos.

Atomic 4 by Universal
Atomic 4 by Universal
Universal
Universal Motor Corp., a US company headquarted in Oskosh, WI, was the largest producer of marine engines. In 1948, Universal introduced a gasoline engine called the Atomic 4 which became popular. They were unrivaled until the 1970’s when diesel powered engines became more popular. Boaters prefered diesels which did not have the dangerous fumes and high volatility of gas. Universal would have trouble adjusting. According to Universal, in 1989 the market share for diesel auxiliaries was 45% Yanmar, 42% Universal, and 18% Volvo/Westerbeke/Perkins. In 1990, Universal sold to Westerbeke.

Westerbeke 40 aka Perkins 4-107
Westerbeke 40 aka Perkins 4-107
Perkins
In 1959, a British industrial company Perkins introduced the 4-99, a diesel engine for general applications especially power tractors. Perkins, not realizing the marine applications of the 4-99, sold the US import rights to Westerbeke. By the mid-1960’s, Perkins took back control and became a fierce competitor offering the Perkins 4-99 for marine use. In 1997, Caterpillar bought Perkins.

Westerbeke
Westerbeke, the “Poor man’s Perkins,” does not have a good reputation. They did well for awhile until Perkins introduced the engine themselves. Then, Westerbeke combined blocks and parts of other manufacturers to ween of their dependency on Perkins. Some of these engines are the kiss of death for a boat like in the Hylas 44. Westerbeke produced better received generators. In 1990, they bought Universal mixing in their engine parts.

Yanmar 4JHE
Yanmar 4JHE
Yanmar
Yanmar, a Japanese manufacturer, dominates the marine diesel market. In the 1970’s, Yanmar diesels quickly took market share from Universal gas engines. In the 1980’s, boat building outsourced east to Taiwan, closer to the Japanese Yanmar. The 4J series is the most common engine you see today. Virtually all yachts built after 1990 have a Yanmar, and owners have repowered many 1980’s boats with Yanmars. New yachts almost all have a Yanmar engine standard.

Volvo
Volvo is a Swedish car manufacturer which always have produced marine engines both gas and diesel. Penta is the subsidary that makes the Volvo engines since merging in 1935. Volvo has been and still is a steady player with a smaller market share.

LS heritage
The General Motors engine family commonly called the LS series debuted in the then-new1997 model year C5 Corvette as the all aluminum LS1 V8. General Motors called it the Gen III small-block V8 and a year later (the 1998 model year), the LS1 replaced the LT1 small-block in Camaros and Firebirds, which was followed by the iron-block version of the Gen III V8 appearing in the full size trucks and SUVs. The LS1 displaced 5.7 liters, similar to the previous-generation small-block, but the cubic-inch measurement differed slightly: 346 for the LS1 vs. the traditional 350 cubes.
In 1999, the Gen III platform spawned the higher-performance LS6 that was standard in the Corvette Z06. In 2005, the Gen IV branch of the LS family was born, differing from the Gen III with cast-in provisions for fuel-saving cylinder deactivation, larger displacements and revised camshaft sensing. The performance versions of the Gen IV include the LS2, LS3, LS9 supercharged, LSA supercharged and the LS7.
Top Searches
Cars
News
5.3 Small Block Build
News
Classifieds
F-Body Nationals
Ls Budget Build
GM has continued to refer its modern V-8 engine family as Gen III and Gen IV, but to the enthusiasts who quickly grasped the tremendous performance potential of the engines, every engine based on the platform has been nicknamed "LSX." The range of production engines from the LS platform is wide. On the truck side, iron-block engines have included 4.8L and 5.3L versions, as well as all-aluminum 6.0L and 6.2L premium engines. Car engines include 5.3L, 5.7L, 6.0L, 6.2L and 7.0L displacements - including some configured for front-wheel-drive.
Gen III vs. Gen IV
Despite some significant differences between Gen III and Gen IV cylinder blocks, all LS engines share common traits that include:
* 4.40-inch bore centers (like the original small-block)
* Six-bolt, cross-bolted main bearing caps
* Center main thrust bearing
* 9.24-inch deck height
* Four-bolt-per-cylinder head bolt pattern
* 0.842-inch lifter bores
* Distributorless, coil-near-plug ignition system
The most distinguishing differences between Gen III and Gen IV cylinder blocks are larger bores (on some engines), different camshaft position sensor locations - indicated by a move to the front timing cover area on Gen IV blocks vs the top-rear position on Gen III blocks - and, on most Gen IV blocks, cast-in provisions for GM's Active Fuel Management cylinder deactivation system in the lifter valley.
There is great interchangeability between all LS engines, including between Gen III and Gen IV versions. Cylinder heads, crankshafts, intake manifolds and more can be mixed and matched - but the devil is in the details. Not every head matches every intake manifold and not every crankshaft works with every engine combination. Will Handzel's "How to Build High-Performance Chevy LS1/LS6 V-8s" - P/N 88958786 - is a great reference source that outlines the more specific differences and interchangeability among Gen III-based engines.
LS1/LS6
LS1 5.7L (346-cu-in) engines were produced between the 1997 and 2004 model years in the United States (Corvette, Camaro, Firebird and GTO) and stretching into 2005 in other markets (primarily Australia). The LS6 was introduced in 2001 in the Corvette Z06 and was manufactured through 2005, where it also was found in the first generation of the Cadillac CTS-V. The LS1 and LS6 share a 5.7L displacement, but the LS6 production engine uses a unique block casting with enhanced strength, greater bay-to-bay breathing capability and other minor differences. The heads, intake manifolds and camshaft also are unique LS6 parts.
LS2
In 2005, the LS2 6.0L (364 cu in) engine and the Gen IV design changes debuted. In GM performance vehicles, it was offered in the Corvette, GTO and even the heritage-styled SSR roadster. It is the standard engine in the Pontiac G8 GT. Its larger displacement brought greater power. The LS2 is one of the most adaptable engines, as LS1, LS6, LS3 and L92 cylinder heads work well on it.
LS3/L99
Introduced on the 2008 Corvette, the LS3 brought LS base performance to an unprecedented level: 430 horsepower from 6.2L (376 cu in) - making it the most powerful base Corvette engine in history. The LS3 block not only has larger bores than the LS2, but a strengthened casting to support more powerful 6.2L engines, including the LS9 supercharged engine of the Corvette ZR1. The LS3 is offered in the Pontiac G8 GXP and is also the standard V-8 engine in the new, 2010 Camaro SS. The L99 version is equipped with GM's fuel-saving Active Fuel Management cylinder deactivation system and is standard on 2010 Camaro SS models equipped with an automatic transmission.
LS4
Perhaps the most unique application of the LS engine in a car, the LS4 is a 5.3L version used in the front-wheel-drive Chevrolet Impala SS and Pontiac Grand Prix GXP. The LS4 has an aluminum block and unique, low-profile front-end accessory system, including a "flattened" water pump, to accommodate the transverse mounting position within the Impala and Grand Prix. It is rated at 303 horsepower and 323 lb-ft of torque.
LS7
A legend in its own time. The LS7 is the standard engine in the Corvette Z06 and its 7.0L displacement (427 cubic inches) makes it the largest LS engine offered in a production car. Unlike LS1/LS6, LS2 and LS3 engines, the LS7 uses a Siamese-bore cylinder block design - required for its big, 4.125-inch bores. Competition-proven heads and lightweight components, such as titanium rods and intake valves, make the LS7 a street-tuned racing engine, with 505 horsepower. LS7 engines are built by hand at the GM Performance Build Center in Wixom, Mich.
LS9
The most powerful production engine ever from GM, the LS9 is the 6.2L supercharged and charge-cooled engine of the Corvette ZR1. It is rated at an astonishing 638 horsepower. The LS9 uses the strengthened 6.2L block with stronger, roto-cast cylinder heads and a sixth-generation 2.3L Roots-type supercharger. Like the LS7, it uses a dry-sump oiling system. It is the ultimate production LS engine. It is built by hand at the GM Performance Build Center in Wixom, Mich.
LSA
A detuned version of the LS9, this supercharged 6.2L engine is standard in the 2009 Cadillac CTS-V. It is built with several differences, when compared to the LS9, including hypereutectic pistons vs. the LS9's forged pistons; and a smaller, 1.9L supercharger. The LSA also has a different charge-cooler design on top of the supercharger. Horsepower is rated at 556 in the super-quick Caddy.
Gen III & Gen IV Vortec truck engines
Although performance car engines have typically carried "LS" designations, truck engines built on this platform have been dubbed Vortec. In the beginning, they were generally distinguished by iron cylinder blocks and were offered in smaller displacements than car engines. Interestingly, a 5.7L Vortec "LS" engine has never been offered. Here's a quick rundown of the previous and current-production LS truck engines:
* 4.8L - The smallest-displacement LS engine (293 cu in); it uses an iron block with 3.78-inch bores and aluminum heads.
* 5.3L - The most common LS truck engine (327 cu in), it uses the same iron block with 3.78-inch bores as the 4.8L, but with a longer stroke , (3.62-inch)crank. Later versions equipped for Active Fuel Management. Manufactured with iron and aluminum cylinder blocks.
* 6.0L - Used primarily in 3/4-ton and 1-ton trucks, the 6.0L (364 cu in) uses an iron block (LY6) or aluminum block (L76) and aluminum heads, with provisions for Active Fuel Management; some equipped with variable valve timing.
* 6.2L - Commonly referred to by its L92 engine code, the 6.2L (376 cu in) engine uses an aluminum block and heads, and incorporates advanced technology including variable valve timing. The L92 is used primarily as a high-performance engine for the Cadillac Escalade and GMC Yukon Denali.
Non-production cylinder blocks
C5R: Developed for the factory-backed Corvette racing program, the C5R cylinder block has been manufactured in comparatively small quantities since 2000. They are manufactured with a unique aluminum alloy for greater strength and undergo a variety of specialized machining and inspection processes, including "hipping" to increase strength and X-raying that ensures against unacceptable porosity. A Siamese bore design with 4.117-inch finished bores enables 7.0L (427-cu-in) displacements. The C5R uses billet steel main caps with premium, 4340 fasteners. Racing-quality head studs are also included. All LS series heads will work with the C5R block, but maximum performance depends on maximum airflow.
LSX Bowtie Block (standard and tall-deck): Introduced in 2007, the LSX Bowtie Block is a durable and affordable cast iron casting that was designed to support extreme high-performance combinations, including provisions for six-bolts-per-cylinder head fastening. It has a Siamese bore design with 3.99-inch bores that must be finished to 4.00 inches - with a 4.25-inch recommended maximum bore. Maximum stroke can reach 4.25 inches, but rotating assembly interference on the cylinder must be taken into account for strokes greater than 4.125 inches; heavy metal is required for crankshaft balancing of larger-stroke combinations. Standard versions feature decks 0.020-inch taller than LS production blocks, with the tall-deck version manufactured with a 9.70-inch semi-finished deck height. The oiling system is a true priority-main system and all LS small-block heads work with the engine. Higher-airflow heads, such as LS7 and C5R, are recommended.
Crankshafts
Generally, LS crankshafts are similar in design, with identical 2.10-inch rod and 2.65-inch main journal sizes and a common rear main seal. All LS engines uses iron crankshafts except the LS7, LS9 and LSA; they used forged steel cranks (4.00-inch stroke on the LS7; 3.62-inch stroke on the LS9 and LSA).
The crankshaft sensing function of the distributorless ignition system depends on reading the toothed reluctor wheel on the crankshaft. Early LS engines mostly used 24-tooth wheels and upgraded a few years ago to 58-tooth (also known as 58X) wheels. When building an LS engine, it is imperative the correct reluctor wheel is used with the compatible crankshaft position sensor and ignition controller.
The crankshafts are mostly interchangeable, but the snouts on LS7 and LS9 crankshafts are approximately 1-inch longer to accommodate their two-stage oil pumps that work with the engines' dry-sump oiling systems. These forged crankshafts can be used on wet-sump engines by using a few specific components and/or modifications.
The easiest way to put a forged stroker crankshaft in your LS engine is using GM Performance Parts' new LSX crankshafts, which are available in four stroke sizes up to 4.125 inches. They feature the standard-length snout and can be used without modification on most engines. LS7 and LS9 crankshafts can be used, but require special components and/or modifications to their snouts to accommodate standard, wet-sump oiling systems.
Connecting Rods
LS connecting rods are very similar and interchangeable. Most are made of powdered metal, while the LS7 and LS9 rods are forged titanium. Rods lengths are similar, too, at 6.098-inch for 5.3L, 5.7L, 6.0L and 6.2L engines. The 4.8L engine uses 6.275-inch rods and the LS7 uses 6.067-inch rods. Since 2006, LS rods use bushed small ends. Also, LS6 rods bolts, P/N 11600158, offer a strength-enhancing upgrade to pre-2000 engines. Finally, because of the pistons' inner bracing, non-LS7 rods will not work with LS7 pistons; and the LS7 rods have a slightly different size than other LS rods, requiring a unique bearing, P/N 89017573.
Pistons
The LS9 is the only production LS engine with forged aluminum pistons; all the other use hypereutectic (cast) aluminum alloy pistons - varied mostly by diameter to accommodate various bore sizes. LS cast pistons shouldn't be used on applications greater than approximately 550 horsepower. Also, the LS7 piston's inner bracing requires the use of the matching LS7 connecting rod.
Cylinder Heads - Port Design Cylinder head interchangeability enables great parts mixing to build custom LS engine combinations, but the heads must be matched with intake manifolds that have compatible intake port configurations. The port sizes and shapes include:
Cathedral port - Introduced on the LS1 engine and used also on the LS6 and LS2, cathedral-port heads are named for the unique shape of the top of the intake port. Intake manifolds for LS1, LS2, LS6 and Vortec engines with cathedral-port heads are mostly interchangeable.
Rectangular port - LS7-style - The second LS intake runner design debuted on the Corvette Z06's LS7 engine. This rectangular design supports the straight-through airflow design of the heads. They feature 270cc intake ports and the ports and combustion chambers are CNC-ported from the factory. Use only with the LS7 intake manifold.
Rectangular port - L92 style - Similar to the LS7 design, but the ports are a little taller and a little narrower. They flow more than cathedral-port heads, but not as much as LS7 heads. In addition to the L92 6.2L engines, this port shape is also used on LS3 engines and some 6.0L truck engines, as well as the Corvette ZR1's LS9 and Cadillac CTS-V's LSA supercharged engines. Intake manifold bolt patterns are unique to this port design.
C5R heads - These heads pioneered the rectangular-port design, but because they are designed for professional finishing, their final shape and size depends on whoever is performing the porting.
Head-to-Block Compatibility
Because of their comparatively small bores - 3.89 inches - LS1 and LS6 engines can only use LS1, LS6 and LS2 heads. Using heads designed for larger engines will cause the valve-to-block interference. The larger, 4.00-inch bore of the LS2 enables it to use LS1/LS6 heads, as well as L92-style heads (including LS3, LS9 and LSA engines). The 6.2L engines (LS3, L92, etc.) can use any head except for the LS7 and C5R, while the 7.0L LS7 and C5R blocks can use any LS-series head. LS7 blocks should be matched with heads designed for at least 4.10-inch bores; and 4.125-inch bores are preferred.
Most LS production cylinder blocks share the came cylinder head bolt pattern and the same size head bolts - four 11mm bolts per cylinder (10 in total) and five upper, 8mm bolts. Early LS1 and LS6 engines used different-length 11mm bolts, but engines from 2004 and later use same-length bolts. LS9 engines use stronger, 12mm head bolts.
Non-production blocks, such as GM Performance Parts' LSX block and the C5R, offer the same head-bolt pattern as production blocks. All LS heads will bolt up to them, but care must be taken to select the most compatible heads based on the appropriate bore size. Because of their large bores, heads designed for at least 4.10-inch bores should be used and 4.125-inch bores are preferred, such as the L92/LS3 or LS7 heads; otherwise valve-to-block interference is an issue, as is sufficient cylinder sealing.
GM Performance Parts' new LSX cylinder heads use 10 11mm and 13 8mm head bolts, or eight more than a regular-production LS head. That's more than 50 percent more head bolts than production heads, supplying superior clamping strength.

http://www.superchevy.com/how-to/0901gmhtp-ls1-ls6-ls2-ls3-l99-ls4-ls7-ls9-lsa-engine-history/

I am kinda confused. The CX-5 only comes with a 2.5L right now. Right?

dougal said:

I am kinda confused. The CX-5 only comes with a 2.5L right now. Right?

Click to expand...

Yes I believe they dropped the manual basic-spec 2L CX5 from North America now. I made this write-up should anyone looking into a used CX-5 want a fair and honest comparison of the two motors.

GJ-Molestor said:

Yes I believe they dropped the manual basic-spec 2L CX5 from North America now. I made this write-up should anyone looking into a used CX-5 want a fair and honest comparison of the two motors.

Click to expand...

It is not a write up, it is a copy and paste up.

Sailingeric said:

Marine Engine History

Click to expand...

Eric, as much as you irritate my soul I will say I do appreciate the good read. Since we have begun posting about engine history, lets look past Chevrolets 1970s pushrod motor to something far more advanced, The beloved N52. a very efficient, smooth, free-revving 7000RPM motor (name one other inline 6 engine thats revs this high and not made by BMW) while returning 32MPG on the highway in a 3900pound sedan. Whether the engine is idling at 600RPM or at 7000RPM, the engine is virtually imperceptible in terms of any sort of vibration or harshness. The last of its kind and very rare, A Naturally Aspirated Inline 6 motor. No motor like this will ever be made again..

The most powerful (stock) output for this engine was 232ft/lb of torque at 2750RPM. In a 3L engine. Just imagine having that much torque at barely 2500RPM.. ts not a turbo-like shove of our 2.5L Mazda engine, but extremely linear and smooth even from the absolute lowest RPM all while emitting a wonderfully smooth, turbine-like burr which sounds like a cross between a ripping chainsaw and a velvety-smooth refined 6 cylinder. You can Literally hear and feel how smooth these things run even at very high mileage. The basic engine design (minus the ridiculous, unnecessarily complex electronics) has the reliability of a Honda engine. On e90post, there ae quite a few owners with 300k miles on this engine and it runs perfectly fine. My only gripe with BMW is some of the ridiculously over-engineered designs around the car, but the chassis tuning, forgiving yet capable RWD handling and brilliantly calibrated drivetrains with the satisfyingly generic yet beautiful sedan lines/RWD proportions made hand over my money or a used 2011 528i without even blinking, and I got very lucky.

If you have gotten to this point, you will now learn the one massive misconception about BMW, and German brands as a whole

Buying a modern BMW particularly after 2011 BMW is a purely hit or miss situation. You will either end up with some absolute piece of s*** thats constantly in the shop, or a genuinely great vehicle that is completely trouble free during your time with it while providing an inspirational driving experience. Mine has been mostly trouble free apart from a $20 ignition coil (my mistake, changed spark plugs too late which started to fry my coils)

BMW N52 History

The N52 straight-six was designed to replace the M54 and was introduced in 2004, remaining in production until 2011. The engine made its debut in 258hp, N52B30 form in the E63 630Ci and was joined by the N52B25 in 2005; the larger engine had five differing power outputs while the smaller variant was made available in three different versions. As with the M54, the N52 appeared in a huge range of BMW models, including the E9x 3 Series, E60, E85 Z4, E83 X3, E65 7 Series and even the F10 5 Series and F25 X3. The engine was replaced in 2011 by the N53, though not in North America where the N52 continued to be used until the turbocharged N20 was introduced, and China, where the N52 continues to be used in the F18 long wheelbase 530Li Saloon.

The N52 came in two flavours: the N52B25 used a bore of 82mm and stroke of 78.8mm with an 11.0:1 compression ratio, while the N52B30 used an 85mm bore and 88mm stroke with a lower compression ratio of 10.7:1.

The N52 used an engine block which used magnesium and aluminium for the crankcase; magnesium is extremely light, but it is at greater risk of corrosion from water and it can creep under load at high temperatures. For this reason, pure magnesium or magnesium as a conventional alloy is not suited for dealing with the sorts of loads and forces that central engine components have to deal with. Because of this, BMW employed a magnesium alloy for the crankcase shell, while an aluminium inner block was used to counteract the disadvantages of the magnesium. The N52 used Alusil cylinder liners and featured Valvetronic and Dual VANOS.

While capacity never changed, outputs varied drastically across the range for both engines, with changes in power coming from different resonant intake manifolds and different software maps. The least powerful variant was the 177hp version which was used in the Canadian E90 323i, E60/1 535i, except North America, and the 2.5i E85 Z4. Peak power was developed at 5800rpm while peak torque of 170lb ft was available between 3500- 5000rpm. The most powerful 2.5 was the 218hp version, as fitted to a number of 25i models, including the E83 X3, E9x 325i and E85 Z4 2.5si, with peak power being produced at 6500rpm and peak torque of 184lb ft available between 2750-4250rpm. The least powerful 3.0 version, as found in the E85 Z4 3.0i, North American F10 528i and X1 xDrive25i, also made 218hp, which arrived at 6100rpm, with 199lb ft, developed between 2500-4250rpm. At the other end of the scale sat the 272hp variant, with peak power being developed at 6650rpm, while peak torque of 232lb ft was produced at 2750rpm.

Another great copy and paste, better give your fingers a break!

dougal said:

I am kinda confused. The CX-5 only comes with a 2.5L right now. Right?

Click to expand...

No. 2.0L is available here in Australia, Europe and elsewhere.

Sailingeric said:

Marine Diesel Engines History Universal, Volvo, Perkins, Westerbeke, Yanmar

Marine engines are mostly Yanmars in newer boats. But in the brokerage market, plenty of yachts have Perkins, Westerbekes, Universals, or Volvos.

Click to expand...

Sailingeric:

Although certainly NOT the venue for your post, I enjoyed the read. It was a case of finding something good in a place you don't expect it.

I've had two boats; an '81 Tanzer 8.5 with a Yanmar 2QM15, and my current '01 Catalina 320 with Yanmar 3GM30F. They are both good engines, but the 2 cylinder was light enough that with a dead battery you could hand start it with the supplied engine crank handle - and I did. Friday past I pulled the sails/boom/gear from the exterior in preparation for mast-down Wednesday. Haul out the end of the month.

Brian

GJ-Molestor said:

Eric, as much as you irritate my soul I will say I do appreciate the good read. Since we have begun posting about engine history, let’s look past Chevrolet’s 1970’s pushrod motor to something far more advanced, The beloved N52. a very efficient, smooth, free-revving 7000RPM motor (name one other inline 6 engine that’s revs this high and not made by BMW) while returning 32MPG on the highway in a 3900pound sedan. Whether the engine is idling at 600RPM or at 7000RPM, the engine is virtually imperceptible in terms of any sort of vibration or harshness. The last of its kind and very rare, A Naturally Aspirated Inline 6 motor. No motor like this will ever be made again..

The most powerful (stock) output for this engine was 232ft/lb of torque at 2750RPM. In a 3L engine. Just imagine having that much torque at barely 2500RPM.. t’s not a turbo-like shove of our 2.5L Mazda engine, but extremely linear and smooth even from the absolute lowest RPM all while emitting a wonderfully smooth, turbine-like burr which sounds like a cross between a ripping chainsaw and a velvety-smooth refined 6 cylinder. You can Literally hear and feel how smooth these things run even at very high mileage. The basic engine design (minus the ridiculous, unnecessarily complex electronics) has the reliability of a Honda engine. On e90post, there ae quite a few owners with 300k miles on this engine and it runs perfectly fine. My only gripe with BMW is some of the ridiculously over-engineered designs around the car, but the chassis tuning, forgiving yet capable RWD handling and brilliantly calibrated drivetrains with the satisfyingly generic yet beautiful sedan lines/RWD proportions made hand over my money or a used 2011 528i without even blinking, and I got very lucky.

If you have gotten to this point, you will now learn the one massive misconception about BMW, and German brands as a whole

Buying a modern BMW particularly after 2011 BMW is a purely hit or miss situation. You will either end up with some absolute piece of s*** that’s constantly in the shop, or a genuinely great vehicle that is completely trouble free during your time with it while providing an inspirational driving experience.

Click to expand...

I agree that the straight six NA is a beautiful engine which I have 146,000 trouble free miles on so far, which is also available with a twin scroll turbo. Prior to 2011 there were issues with the high performance fuel pump failures in the first couple years of the E90 which started in 2006. I work with and have many friends driving modern day 2011 through 2018 BMW’s that have been flawless thus far, so let’s not be subjective with their all crap after 2011 as the data (not my subjective comment I just made) says otherwise. I can make the same subjective statement about my CX5 because it’s a miss with it being in the shop and costing me more than any other car I’ve owned, my brothers 2015 CX5 had his transmission replaced, so should I make a statement that buying a CX5 is a hit or miss lol. Anyway you also forgot to mention the new B series motors which have been replacing all the N series motors starting with the 2017 model year.

bamirault said:

Sailingeric:

Although certainly NOT the venue for your post, I enjoyed the read. It was a case of finding something good in a place you don't expect it.

I've had two boats; an '81 Tanzer 8.5 with a Yanmar 2QM15, and my current '01 Catalina 320 with Yanmar 3GM30F. They are both good engines, but the 2 cylinder was light enough that with a dead battery you could hand start it with the supplied engine crank handle - and I did. Friday past I pulled the sails/boom/gear from the exterior in preparation for mast-down Wednesday. Haul out the end of the month.

Brian

Click to expand...

Sad when it is time to put a boat away for the winter. I usually do a couple off shore trips year but this year I did not get to and the boat I normally crew on, a Benateau 456, is being sold. Last year we took the boat from. Antigua to Grenada, I have also taken it from Ft Lauderdale to Bermuda and few trips up and down the east coast. Sad to see it go .
Not sure where in Canada you are but if you ever need crew for a passage, hit me up.

Dup

Anyone else got some more interesting engine history for us?

The jet engine has a long history, from early steam devices in the 2nd century BC to the modern turbofans and scramjets.

Precursors

Jet engines can be dated back to the invention of the aeolipile around 150 BC. This device used steam power directed through two nozzles so as to cause a sphere to spin rapidly on its axis.[1] So far as is known, it was not used for supplying mechanical power, and the potential practical applications of this invention were not recognized. It was simply considered a curiosity.

Jet propulsion only literally and figuratively took off with the invention of the rocket by the Chinese in the 13th century fireworks but gradually progressed to propel formidable weaponry; and there the technology stalled for hundreds of years.

Archytas, the founder of mathematical mechanics, as described in the writings of Aulus Gellius five centuries after him, was reputed to have designed and built the first artificial, self-propelled flying device. This device was a bird-shaped model propelled by a jet of what was probably steam, said to have actually flown some 200 meters.

Ottoman Lagari Hasan elebi is said to have taken off in 1633 with what was described to be a cone-shaped rocket and then to have glided with wings into a successful landing, winning a position in the Ottoman army. However, this was essentially a stunt. The problem was that rockets are simply too inefficient at low speeds to be useful for general aviation.

The earliest attempts at airbreathing jet engines were hybrid designs in which an external power source first compressed air, which was then mixed with fuel and burned for jet thrust. In one such system, called a thermojet by Secondo Campini but more commonly, motorjet, the air was compressed by a fan driven by a conventional piston engine. Examples include the Caproni Campini N.1 and the Japanese Tsu-11 engine intended to power Ohka kamikaze planes towards the end of World War II. None were entirely successful and the CC.2 ended up being slower than the same design with a traditional engine and propeller combination.


Albert Fon's ramjet-cannonball from 1915
In 1913, French aerospace engineer Ren Lorin patented a design for the world's first ramjet, but it was not possible develop a working prototype as no existing airplane could achieve sufficient speed for it to operate, and thus the concept remained theoretical for quite some time.

Even before the start of World War II, engineers were beginning to realize that the piston engine was self-limiting in terms of the maximum performance which could be attained; the limit was due to issues related to propulsive efficiency,[2] which declined as blade tips approached the speed of sound. If engine, and thus aircraft, performance were ever to increase beyond such a barrier, a way would have to be found to radically improve the design of the piston engine, or a wholly new type of powerplant would have to be developed. This was the motivation behind the development of the gas turbine engine, commonly called a "jet" engine, which would become almost as revolutionary to aviation as the Wright brothers' first flight.


Albert Fon's German patent for jet Engines (January 1928- granted 1932). The third illustration is a turbojet
The key to a practical jet engine was the gas turbine, used to extract energy from the engine itself to drive the compressor. The gas turbine was not an idea developed in the 1930s: the patent for a stationary turbine was granted to John Barber in England in 1791. The first gas turbine to successfully run self-sustaining was built in 1903 by Norwegian engineer gidius Elling. Limitations in design and practical engineering and metallurgy prevented such engines reaching manufacture. The main problems were safety, reliability, weight and, especially, sustained operation.

In Hungary, Albert Fon in 1915 devised a solution for increasing the range of artillery, comprising a gun-launched projectile which was to be united with a ramjet propulsion unit. This was to make it possible to obtain a long range with low initial muzzle velocities, allowing heavy shells to be fired from relatively lightweight guns. Fon submitted his invention to the Austro-Hungarian Army but the proposal was rejected. In 1928 he applied for a German patent on aircraft powered by supersonic ramjets, and this was awarded in 1932.[3][4][5]

The first patent for using a gas turbine to power an aircraft was filed in 1921 by Frenchman Maxime Guillaume.[6] His engine was an axial-flow turbojet.

In 1923, Edgar Buckingham of the US National Bureau of Standard published a report[7] expressing scepticism that jet engines would be economically competitive with prop driven aircraft at the low altitudes and airspeeds of the period: "there does not appear to be, at present, any prospect whatever that jet propulsion of the sort here considered will ever be of practical value, even for military purposes."

Instead, by the 1930s, the piston engine in its many different forms (rotary and static radial, air-cooled and liquid-cooled inline) was the only type of powerplant available to aircraft designers. This was acceptable as long as only low-performance aircraft were required, and indeed all that were available.

Pre World War II Edit


The Whittle W.2/700 engine flew in the Gloster E.28/39, the first British aircraft to fly with a turbojet engine, and the Gloster Meteor.
In 1928, RAF College Cranwell cadet [8] Frank Whittle formally submitted his ideas for a turbo-jet to his superiors. In October 1929, he developed his ideas further.[9] On 16 January 1930 in England, Whittle submitted his first patent (granted in 1932).[10] The patent showed a two-stage axial compressor feeding a single-sided centrifugal compressor. Practical axial compressors were made possible by ideas from A.A. Griffith in a seminal paper in 1926 ("An Aerodynamic Theory of Turbine Design"). Whittle would later concentrate on the simpler centrifugal compressor only, for a variety of practical reasons. Whittle had his first engine running in April 1937. It was liquid-fuelled, and included a self-contained fuel pump. Whittle's team experienced near-panic when the engine would not stop, accelerating even after the fuel was switched off. It turned out that fuel had leaked into the engine and accumulated in pools. So the engine would not stop until all the leaked fuel had burned off. Whittle was unable to interest the government in his invention, and development continued at a slow pace.


Heinkel He 178, the world's first aircraft to fly purely on turbojet power.
In 1935, Hans von Ohain started work on a similar design in Germany, and it is often claimed that he was unaware of Whittle's work.[11] Ohain said that he had not read Whittle's patent, and Whittle believed him (Frank Whittle 1907–1996). However, the Whittle patent was in German libraries, and Whittle's son had suspicions that Ohain had read or heard of it.[12]

Years later, it was admitted by von Ohain in his biography [13] that this was so. Author Margaret Conner states ″Ohain's patent attorney happened upon a Whittle patent in the years that the von Ohain patents were being formulated". Von Ohain himself is quoted as saying "We felt that it looked like a patent of an idea" "We thought that it was not seriously being worked on." As Ohain's patent was not filed until 1935, this admission clearly shows that he had read Whittle's patent and had even critiqued it in some detail prior to filing his own patent and some 2 years before his own engine ran.

VON OHAIN: ″Our patent claims had to be narrowed in comparison to Whittle’s because Whittle showed certain things." "When I saw Whittle’s patent, I was almost convinced that it had something to do with boundary layer suction combinations. It had a two-flow, dual entrance flow radial flow compressor that looked monstrous from an engine point of view. Its flow reversal looked to us to be an undesirable thing but it turned out that it wasn't so bad after all though it gave some minor instability problems.″

His first device was strictly experimental and could only run under external power but he was able to demonstrate the basic concept. Ohain was then introduced to Ernst Heinkel, one of the larger aircraft industrialists of the day, who immediately saw the promise of the design. Heinkel had recently purchased the Hirth engine company, and Ohain and his master machinist Max Hahn were set up there as a new division of the Hirth company. They had their first HeS 1 centrifugal engine running by September 1937. Unlike Whittle's design, Ohain used hydrogen as fuel, supplied under external pressure. Their subsequent designs culminated in the gasoline-fuelled HeS 3 of 1,100 lbf (5 kN), which was fitted to Heinkel's simple and compact He 178 airframe and flown by Erich Warsitz in the early morning of 27 August 1939, from Rostock-Marienehe aerodrome, an impressively short time for development. The He 178 was the world's first turbojet-powered aircraft to fly.[14]

The world's first turboprop was the Jendrassik Cs-1 designed by the Hungarian mechanical engineer Gyrgy Jendrassik. It was produced and tested in the Ganz factory in Budapest between 1938 and 1942. It was planned to fit to the Varga RMI-1 X/H twin-engined reconnaissance bomber designed by Lszl Varga in 1940 but the program was cancelled. Jendrassik had also designed a small-scale 75 kW turboprop in 1937.

Whittle's engine was starting to look useful and his Power Jets Ltd. started receiving Air Ministry money. In 1941, a flyable version of the engine called the W.1, capable of 1000 lbf (4 kN) of thrust, was fitted to the Gloster E28/39 airframe specially built for it and first flew on 15 May 1941 at RAF Cranwell.



British aircraft engine designer, Frank Halford, working from Whittle's ideas, developed a "straight through" version of the centrifugal jet; his design became the de Havilland Goblin.

One problem with both of these early designs, which are called centrifugal-flow engines, was that the compressor worked by accelerating air outward from the central intake to the outer periphery of the engine, where the air was then compressed by a divergent duct set-up, converting its velocity into pressure. An advantage of this design was that it was already well understood, having been implemented in centrifugal superchargers, then in widespread use on piston engines. However, given the early technological limitations on the shaft speed of the engine, the compressor needed to have a very large diameter to produce the power required. This meant that the engines had a large frontal area, which made it less useful as an aircraft powerplant due to drag. A further disadvantage of the earlier Whittle designs was that the air flow was reversed through the combustion section and again to the turbine and tailpipe, adding complexity and lowering efficiency. Nevertheless, these types of engines had the major advantages of light weight, simplicity and reliability, and development rapidly progressed to practical airworthy designs.



Austrian Anselm Franz of Junkers' engine division (Junkers Motoren or Jumo) addressed these problems with the introduction of the axial-flow compressor. Essentially, this is a turbine in reverse. Air coming in the front of the engine is blown towards the rear of the engine by a fan stage (convergent ducts), where it is crushed against a set of non-rotating blades called stators (divergent ducts). The process is nowhere near as powerful as the centrifugal compressor, so a number of these pairs of fans and stators are placed in series to get the needed compression. Even with all the added complexity, the resulting engine is much smaller in diameter and thus, more aerodynamic. Jumo was assigned the next engine number in the RLM numbering sequence, 4, and the result was the Jumo 004 engine. After many lesser technical difficulties were solved, mass production of this engine started in 1944 as a powerplant for the world's first jet-fighter aircraft, the Messerschmitt Me 262 (and later the world's first jet-bomber aircraft, the Arado Ar 234). A variety of reasons conspired to delay the engine's availability, this delay caused the fighter to arrive too late to decisively impact Germany's position in World War II. Nonetheless, it will be remembered as the first use of jet engines in service.

The Heinkel-Hirth aviation powerplant firm also tried to create a more powerful turbojet engine, the Heinkel HeS 011 of nearly 3,000 pounds of thrust at full power, very late in the war to improve the propulsion options available to new German military jet aircraft designs, and to improve the performance of existing designs. It used a unique "diagonal" compressor section that combined the features of both centrifugal and axial-flow compressor layouts for turbojet powerplants, but remained on the test bench, with only some nineteen examples ever produced.

In the UK, their first axial-flow engine, the Metrovick F.2, ran in 1941 and was first flown in 1943. Although more powerful than the centrifugal designs at the time, the Ministry considered its complexity and unreliability a drawback in wartime. The work at Metrovick led to the Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire engine which would be built in the US as the J65.

Post World War II

Following the end of the war, the German jet aircraft and jet engines were extensively studied by the victorious allies and contributed to work on early Soviet (see Arkhip Lyulka) and US jet fighters. The legacy of the axial-flow engine is seen in the fact that practically all jet engines on fixed wing aircraft have had some inspiration from this design.

Centrifugal-flow engines have improved since their introduction. With improvements in bearing technology the shaft speed of the engine was increased, greatly reducing the diameter of the centrifugal compressor. The short engine length remains an advantage of this design, particularly for use in helicopters where overall size is more important than frontal area. Also, as their engine components are more robust they are less liable to foreign object damage than axial-flow compressor engines.

Although German designs were more advanced aerodynamically, the combination of simplicity and the lack of requisite rare metals for the necessary advanced metallurgy (such as tungsten, chromium and titanium) for high-stress components such as turbine blades and bearings, etc. meant that the later produced German engines had a short service life and had to be changed after 10–25 hours. British engines were also widely manufactured under license in the US (see Tizard Mission), and were sold to Soviet Russia who reverse engineered them with the Nene going on to power the famous MiG-15. American and Soviet designs, independent axial-flow types, for the most part, would strive to attain superior performance until the 1960s, although the General Electric J47 provided excellent service in the F-86 Sabre in the 1950s.

By the 1950s, the jet engine was almost universal in combat aircraft, with the exception of cargo, liaison, and other specialty types. By this point some of the British designs were already cleared for civilian use, and had appeared on early models like the de Havilland Comet and Avro Canada Jetliner. By the 1960s all large civilian aircraft were also jet powered, leaving the piston engine in such low-cost niche roles such as cargo flights.

Relentless improvements in the turboprop pushed the piston engine (an internal combustion engine) out of the mainstream entirely, leaving it serving only the smallest general aviation designs and some use in drone aircraft. The ascension of the jet engine to almost universal use in aircraft took well under twenty years.

However, the story was not quite at an end, for the efficiency of turbojet engines was still rather worse than piston engines, but by the 1970s with the advent of high bypass jet engines, an innovation not foreseen by the early commentators like Edgar Buckingham, at high speeds and high altitudes that seemed absurd to them, only then did the fuel efficiency finally exceed that of the best piston and propeller engines,[15] and the dream of fast, safe, economical travel around the world finally arrived, and their dour, if well founded for the time, predictions that jet engines would never amount to much, were killed forever.

Or something bit more dear to my heart but we'll above your level of understanding

The Physics Of Sailing – Using The Principle Of Lift To Sail Faster

The physics behind sailing is very interesting in that sailboats do not need the wind to push from behind in order to move. The wind can be blowing from the side and the sailboat can still move forward. How is this possible?

The answer lies in the well-known principle of aerodynamic lift. Imagine you are a passenger in a car as it's moving along, and you place your right hand out the window. If you tilt your hand in the clockwise sense your hand will be pushed backwards and up. This is due to the force of the air which has a sideways component and upwards component (therefore your hand is pushed backwards and up).

In a similar fashion, when the wind blows against the sails from the side, this creates a force which has a sideways component and a forward component.

However, we do not want the sailboat to move sideways. We only want it to move forward (as much as possible). This is accomplished with a keel, located underneath the sailboat. The keel provides the counter-force necessary to resist sideways motion of the sailboat, as much as possible.

So in general, there are two main components of a sailboat which enable it to move forward effectively. They are the sail and the keel, as shown below.




Thus, the physics of sailing involves the interaction of the wind and sails, and the interaction of the water and keel.


Analysis Of Lift

The figure below shows the general case where the wind Vw is blowing at an angle θ from the horizontal. This creates a resultant force on the sails, denoted by Fsails, which points in the direction shown.

Note that Vw is the wind velocity relative to the boat. This is not to be confused with the wind velocity relative to the water. If the boat is moving, these velocities are not the same.


The force Fsails is broken down into two components: lift (which acts perpendicular to the wind direction Vw) and drag (which acts parallel to the wind direction Vw). Lift and drag are defined as acting in these two directions; a convention commonly used in the literature with regards to air flow over a wing. As it turns out, air flow over a sail is very similar to air flow over a wing. The two sails (as shown) are oriented so as to optimize the air flow around and between the sails and generate as much "push" force as possible, to move the sailboat forward. The flexibility of the sails allows them to mimic the behaviour of a wing and be oriented in a variety of different positions to get the most "push", depending on which direction the wind is blowing.

The velocity of the sailboat (relative to the water) is denoted by Vboat. This velocity is in a direction skewed slightly to the right of the center line of the boat, by an angle α. This means that the sailboat does not travel "head on" through the water. It is necessary that the sailboat travel slightly off center (with some sideways movement) because it enables the keel to generate the necessary counter-force to resist the sideways force exerted on the sails by the wind. Consequently, some sideways movement is inevitable, but the keel keeps it (and hence α) as small as possible.




The keel behaves like an underwater wing and the same basic physics applies, as explained above for the sail. The force FK is the force exerted by the water on the keel and hull, due to the angle of attack α the keel makes with the water streamlines. Most of this force is (intentionally) due to the keel, which is large and made to resemble a wing to create as much counter-force as possible in order to minimize sideways movement of the boat. Using the same convention as before, FK is defined as perpendicular to the direction of flow of water Vwater.

The force FD is the drag force exerted by the water on the keel and hull, due to the angle α the keel makes with the water streamlines. Using the same convention as before, FD is defined as parallel to the direction of flow of water Vwater.


We can now sum all the forces acting on the sailboat.

forces on sailboat


The balance of forces shows that the sailboat is moving at a constant velocity Vboat through the water, due to the forces between wind & sails, and boat & water.

It should be noted that it's impossible for a sailboat to travel directly into the wind (θ = 90 in the above figure). This is because the resultant force Fsails has no forward component. Instead, it has a backward component meaning the sailboat would travel backwards.

So there is an upper limit on how large θ can be. For very efficient sailboats this upper limit is around 60.


The velocity of the wind relative to the boat (Vw) depends on the speed of the boat (Vboat). One can find Vw using vector addition. If one knows Vboat and the wind velocity relative to the water (call this Vw1), we can use the following vector formula to calculate Vw:

Vw = Vw1 – Vboat


The optimal wind angle for greatest sailboat speed is when Vw is blowing from the side (θ = 0). There are two main reasons for this. The first reason is because the lift force is pointing in the forward direction (parallel to the boat center line). The second reason is because the forward push force (forward component of Fsails) remains fairly constant as Vboat increases. This means that the sailboat can accelerate to a high speed, since the forward push force is largely independent of sailboat speed Vboat.

But if the wind is blowing from behind the boat, Vw (and therefore wind force) is very dependent on Vboat. The faster the boat moves forward, the lower the relative wind velocity Vw and the lower the wind force. For example, if the wind (relative to the water) is blowing at Vw1 = 20 km/h, and the boat is moving at Vboat = 12 km/h (relative to the water), Vw is 20-12 = 8 km/h (relative to the boat). Therefore, the boats speed can never exceed 20 km/h. In fact, the top speed will be significantly less than this.

However, if the wind is blowing from the side it is actually possible for Vboat to be greater than Vw (in magnitude). This is because the push force is great enough and constant enough to propel the sailboat to a high speed.


Tilting Of The Sailboat

A final consideration in the physics of sailing is the tilting of the sailboat which occurs when the wind is blowing from the side. An example of this is shown below.


sailboat tilting in wind




This tilting is due to the torque created by the forces Fsails , FK , and FD. The sideways component of these forces (acting perpendicular to the center line of the boat) creates a clockwise rotation (roll) of the sailboat. This torque is balanced by the counter-clockwise torque generated by the weight of the sailboat and the buoyancy force of the water. The figure below illustrates this.

schematic of sailboat tilting in wind


The force Fsails,h is the sideways (horizontal) component of the force Fsails. The forces FK,h and FD,h are the sideways (horizontal) components of the forces FK and FD (respectively). These component forces rotate the sailboat clockwise until the moment arm R becomes large enough so that the weight and buoyancy forces are able to stop the rotation. This results in a strong leaning of the sailboat to the right.


Closing Remarks

By now it should be clear that the physics of sailing is quite complex, having a lot in common with the physics of lift in airplanes.

It is particularly interesting that, with proper orientation of the sails, you can move in almost any direction relative to the wind, using the principles of aerodynamic lift.