So, I just had a thought pop into my mind:

Imagine the future of the V8 as this:

4.0L, twin-turbo, SIDI, 500+HP. How, you ask? Stick two 2.0L SIDI Ecotecs together and that's what you have. I don't know if that would work, but it seems plausible enough. It would deliver pretty good fuel mileage as well, I think. Image the other possibilities, too. The same HP/L (130 is what the 2.0 gets, but lets use 125) out of a 3.0L would yield 375 screaming ponies. A 3.5L would make 435HP... and so on... I think you can do the math easily enough.

With forced induction being the wave of the future, IMO, I think we could see "big" V6s drop down to the 2.8-3.2L range from the current 3.5-3.8L range with the addition of turbos and direct injection improving fuel efficiency while keeping the same HP levels (around 300). V8s can still thrive where they're at now, at the 300+HP level, but they'll make the fuel economy of a V6 because of forced induction.

A 4.5L version of this engine would make in the neighborhood of 560HP. A 5.0L could be the range-topping mode, use higher-performance parts to put it at 130HP/Ll and make 650HP... on the same level as the LS9 but significantly smaller.

"Detuned" versions could make in the neighborhood of 100HP/L.

Best of all, these engines would still keep the amazingly flat torque curve that everyone loves from a V8 while becoming drastically smaller and more fuel-efficient. It would likely require fewer ponies to achieve the same performance as well, seeing as how these engines would likely be lighter than the big V8s of today.

I think this is the future of the V8. BMW is already onto it with the upcoming twin turbo they have. Perhaps this is why GM is wanting to get into the V8 business with BMW? Sounds good to me...

Interesting proposition, indeed.

One concern I have, however, deals with turbo-lag.

Interesting proposition, indeed.

One concern I have, however, deals with turbo-lag.

Make one turbo small and one large, and your problem is non-existent.

Make one turbo small and one large, and your problem is non-existent.

You are selling this idea well.

How about this:

A super-high performance 2.8L with 150HP/L (it is rumored in the 2.0 I4 turbo)... that'd be a 420HP screaming V8 that would probably get over 30MPG in a small midsize vehicle. Shwweet.

have you drove a production turbo lately? Turbo lag is non existent. It feels like you wait longer for the trans to react then the turbo to spool. They have come a long way. After market stuff is different,but all the auto makers have got it down now.

You do have to consider there is more to go wrong. once you cut the average V8 size down there is lees room for beefy components that have become known with V8s and there reliability. It then becomes more costly to make. stronger thiner parts are required. I'm not against it at all. I would love a 3.5L V8 but, as i deal with things like this in a way(machining and prototyping) it just doesn't make sense or is cost effective. The reason is because they now make really good v6's and I4's. I predict the come back of the I-6.

look at the Lincolns LS and Thunderbird 3.9L v8 made 290 hp and only gets about 18 mpg average and sounds $h!ty next to any other v8.

I hope im wrong but i just dont see it happening.

Simply adding DI and then downsizing the V8 to maintain today's power levels would be a great way to keep V8's relevant. No turbos needed IMO.

Why not buy one from BMW?

Edited June 3, 200817 yr by ZL-1

Why not make cars lighter and put 300hp, ethanol burning, turbo 4-cylinders in them?

I'm all for making V8s smaller... especially if they end up like this:

Why not make cars lighter and put 300hp, ethanol burning, turbo 4-cylinders in them?

I don't see cars getting too much lighter, but obviously we're already going to have 300HP turbo 4s. You aren't going to get 500HP turbo 4's, however. That market isn't going to shrink much regarless of gas prices; the wealthy won't care.

I'm all for making V8s smaller... especially if they end up like this:

That's somewhat how my idea came about, and the screaming sound these engines could make.

I'd buy it!

I'm all for making V8s smaller... especially if they end up like this:

I like my engines to last more than 500 miles before a full rebuild is required.

I've been talkjing mini V8s on this forum for years.

Remember the 1.8 liter V6 in the Mazda MX3 GS?

BMW was supposed to be looking into micro-displacement

large cylinder count technology in the mid 1990s... not

sure why everyone dropped the ball.

The BOP 215 was 3.5 liters, even 2.8-3.0 would be enough

for a small RWD car that would pick up where the 1980s

G-body left off in 1987.