The cost of V10 and V12's

[Muscle Master]

Why does these engines cost so much, is it possible for the Big-three to build them cheap like below the $100,000 line

I already know Chrysler got the viper but what about others

[KatarHol]

Ford had or has a V10 that they put in their heavy duty trucks and Excursions. I don't know if its still offered.

[The_Stache]

The only reason to have more than 8 cylinders is for the torque, and if you need more torque than a v8 can provide your doing some major towing/load hauling.

Essentially like the vipers v10, its overkill and a very niche market. Therefore for a large corporation its not cost effective.

[The_Blur]

GM was developing a V10, but it was scrapped in 2005. I would have loved to see it make production. That would have been a big step toward being taken seriously in the high-performance automotive world, not just for GM but for American sports cars in general. Article is by GM Inside News.

[Mblock66]

You can make more then enough streetable HP and TQ with a V8. The Viper is 600 HP with a V10 and the ZR1 is making 638 HP from a supercharged 8.

Both of these cars have way more power then any comman man should have on the street and is why the ZR1 purchase comes with mandatory driving school lessons (at leas thtat is what I am hearing)

A V10 or 12 is overkill and only really needed for the "im richer then you" appearance.

[The_Blur]

Originally Posted by Mblock66

You can make more then enough streetable HP and TQ with a V8. The Viper is 600 HP with a V10 and the ZR1 is making 638 HP from a supercharged 8.

Both of these cars have way more power then any comman man should have on the street and is why the ZR1 purchase comes with mandatory driving school lessons (at leas thtat is what I am hearing)

A V10 or 12 is overkill and only really needed for the "im richer then you" appearance.

I think about it from an efficiency standpoint. More cylinders has the same effect as more turbos on a build. Each one that you add gives you less potential power than the last, so there's a definite efficiency curve. As a result, it comes down to the manufacturer to make the high-displacement engine as efficient as possible to get the most out of each cylinder.

With V8s, the car is already pretty inefficient. They produce more overall power, but any modern I4 has better efficiency ratios, like horsepower per liter or horsepower per cylinder. Add to that fuel efficiency, a major component of measuring overall efficiency.

Lots of cylinders are great for some car companies because they—Ferrari, Lamborghini, Rolls Royce, Bugatti—depend on having overwhelming performance to hep justify their inexcusable price tags. One way to add performance is to add cylinders regardless of efficiency. After all, if you can afford a car worth over half a million dollars, then you can afford 7 miles per gallon in fuel efficiency. Remember that such terrible efficiency is a result of an efficiency curve. I guarantee that Rolls Royce could build a 40 mpg I4 if they so chose, but it wouldn't have the performance to justify a Rolls Royce price tag, so it wouldn't sell. In effect, such companies will continue to build more cylinders with less fuel efficiency because it sells to their market niche.

In summary, GM, Ford, and Chrysler could develop lots of V10s if they so chose, but they tend to keep their R&D in areas that people actually buy. There's no perceivable function to build a bigger engine, and most buyers wouldn't consider such an engine for reasons of efficiency and cost. Finally, other companies stick to these engines because they have a rich market niche that can afford the luxury of deep roaring engines that cost almost as much in gas as it does in retail pricing due to an efficiency curve.

[stovt001]

Originally Posted by The_Blur

I think about it from an efficiency standpoint. More cylinders has the same effect as more turbos on a build. Each one that you add gives you less potential power than the last, so there's a definite efficiency curve. As a result, it comes down to the manufacturer to make the high-displacement engine as efficient as possible to get the most out of each cylinder.

With V8s, the car is already pretty inefficient. They produce more overall power, but any modern I4 has better efficiency ratios, like horsepower per liter or horsepower per cylinder. Add to that fuel efficiency, a major component of measuring overall efficiency.

Lots of cylinders are great for some car companies because they—Ferrari, Lamborghini, Rolls Royce, Bugatti—depend on having overwhelming performance to hep justify their inexcusable price tags. One way to add performance is to add cylinders regardless of efficiency. After all, if you can afford a car worth over half a million dollars, then you can afford 7 miles per gallon in fuel efficiency. Remember that such terrible efficiency is a result of an efficiency curve. I guarantee that Rolls Royce could build a 40 mpg I4 if they so chose, but it wouldn't have the performance to justify a Rolls Royce price tag, so it wouldn't sell. In effect, such companies will continue to build more cylinders with less fuel efficiency because it sells to their market niche.

In summary, GM, Ford, and Chrysler could develop lots of V10s if they so chose, but they tend to keep their R&D in areas that people actually buy. There's no perceivable function to build a bigger engine, and most buyers wouldn't consider such an engine for reasons of efficiency and cost. Finally, other companies stick to these engines because they have a rich market niche that can afford the luxury of deep roaring engines that cost almost as much in gas as it does in retail pricing due to an efficiency curve.

Ding ding ding. Perfect explanation.

[DGthe3]

from an engineering standpoint:

more cylinders = more complication = more cost + less reliability
more cylinders = more friction = less efficiency
more cylinders = smoother/fatter power band

also, a 6L V12 will be longer but lower than a 6L V8. This reduces center of gravity while making it more difficult to find a place to stuff the engine. It will also be much heavier. Also, it is possible to make the engines with a large stroke and small bore which will make them more similar in size to a regular V8, and well suited to trucks.
Alternatively, higher cylinder numbers make it easier get get more revs out of the same displacement because the stroke length can be reduced. This is the approach that high performance european cars take.

[gladiatoro]

I prefer the awesome rumble sound of a V8 any day vs v10 or v12 they just don't sound that good

[CamaroSpike23]

also keep in mind the displacement of a lot of the V-10, V-12, and W series motors.

90% of the time, the individual cylinders pale in size comparison to conventional v-8s. so in the same overall engine bay accomodations, you can fit more cyls, but they are smaller.... so whoopity do.

with the smaller rotating assy, you can spin the crap out of it and not have the problems that you have with larger cyl motors. but the basics come down to, the V-8 works. period. we can whoop the isht out of v-10s and v12s and w16s all day long with our v-8s. why change to fit "their" style. granted as we've seen in the LS3 engine upgrade book, perfection can indeed be perfected upon. slap a s/c on our v-8s and get the hell back eurocrap cars.

[Maddog78]

Originally Posted by gladiatoro

I prefer the awesome rumble sound of a V8 any day vs v10 or v12 they just don't sound that good

I don't know, V8's sound awesome but if you've ever heard a Lambo or Ferrari V10 or V12 scream you would be impressed.

[patriotpa]

I'd rather hear the roar of a V8 to the screech of a V10 orV12. Sounds like a little F1 to me.

Every time I hear that V8 rumble it reminds me of VanHalen