The turbo motor had more power within usable range of redline for high performance. The V8 had a more even torque curve but was a bit too linear to make peak power all near redline. So, shifts would put the turbo car in an equal HP zone, but the V8 would lose a bit after each shift. If the turbo car had larger spacing between gears, it would’ve fallen on its face to the V8.
That's how high power turbos work. I prefer the torque benefits of more cylinders/displacement but the gas mileage a 4 cylinder is mint. A mid range turbo on a 4 cylinder is best of both worlds. More torque across the board, more power, and better gas mileage but trying to squeeze v8 power like that out of a 4 cylinder is not easy. Forged internals are a necessity
@@derblaue It's not the worse gearing for one car, if the gearing was longer for both cars then the V8 would have won because the turbo pressure isn't enough at lower RPM for the I4
Mechanic here: To make the race fair: 1. N/a deal with inefficiency at the top end while Turbo excels at. 2. Therefore gearing is unfair for v8 despite being almost identical, needs to be much shorter. 3. As u can see V8 gears feel ‘taller’ despite being slightly shorter. 4. The V8 car is 100-200lb heavier. Turbo 4s will always have massive pwr/weight advantage over V8s. But if we can bring in lighter and more efficient V8 that can bring the difference within 50-100lb, the gap will close. Anyway, don’t take anything as absolution. This is physics, and it’s all about the balancing of numbers. Nothing is better, just numbers to get what u want.
Yeah but that's the point, turbo 4 cylinder has the advantage of being lighter then a v8 The rest of the game is just where the motor puts it's power TBH it looks like a fair fight, now we have to wait for turbo V8 vs turbo 4 cylinder
I love that we can come here and just talk engines but it is all physics at the end of the day. First commenter did say that’s the advantages of the in-line but i would indeed like to see an more fair comparison. If not using a lighter v8 use a lighter car or identical car. I don’t think the creator will redo all these videos but it’s just the idea
the v8 fell out of the powerband during shifts, you can clearly see the wheel horsepower readout being 20-45 behind the turbo car for the first half of every gear. You really need to get that number equal across working rpm range to make it close. Horsepower, and the average wheel number you see in that box during the time of a pull, is all that matters for acceleration of two equally massive bodies.
Exactly. Keeping the gearing the same is counterintuitively an 'unfair' way of testing. Also brings back the discussion of the silliness of 'torque vs hp', but I digress. A good way of showing how gearing is important, imagine if we put a v8 from the previous gen F1 cars in this. That's a 750+ HP v8, should stomp these two cars right? well, not if you kept the gearing the same. See, these v8's only produced about 280ft/lbs of torque, the only reason they made 750hp is because they could rev up 18-19k rpm. Now if you could gear it properly so that you wouldn't lug this engine then yes, it would demolish these two cars. After all, it would have a 250hp advantage (not to mention the engine itself is extremely light as well).
@@schkann1384 the turbo is throttled to flow 500hp worth of air to that 4 cylinder, as long as it’s spooled. 500hp worth of air is going to make 500lb ft of torque at 5252 rpm, and if you plot the math of horsepower, the torque line will follow it perfectly, tapering at the top end to make the same peak as the v8. The v8 however does not have the turbo cramming peak horsepower amounts of air throughout its entire rpm band, therefore only makes its torque for half the rev range. This actually isn’t that big of a deal if you had it geared to stay in the band, or made the band wider for the v8 with boost too, it would be the same as the other.
This guy I believe doesn’t know a lot about cars and is messing around making content. He straight piped a V8 which sounds horrible and then made it rev to 8k which good luck trying to make a V8 rev to 8K unrealistic in my opinion and most V8s power would drop significantly like you wouldn’t be making power above 6k realistically
The benefit of the larger displacement v8 is the length of the life of the engine. That is a little bit harder to simulate which one loses compression and goes in the trash first.
Depends, Turbo engines are usually built using better components than an NA v8. Most are way overbuilt for their purpose so they will last a very long and happy life even under boost. However na 4 with boost added vs na v8 and the stock 4 will not be happy for a super long time. I have had a couple of Turbo 4 with over 300000 miles on them so it is definitely possible.
The lifetime of an engine is completely up to how well it is built. its really not possible to determine by displacement or power/displacement alone (may have been so 1965 - is not so today). an I4 turbo engine with the same power as a v8 with double the displacement will use much stronger and more high end components to archieve the same design lifetime. in fact in many cases it is more expensive for the manufacturer to put a smaller more sophisticated engine (with same or more power) in a new car compared to an older model with bigger but more neanderthal engine. many people believe manufacturers cheap out by putting fewer cylinders in the cars - in general they do not, even the opposite is true. its done for emission and fuel consumption figures these days. the manufacturers must comply with those and thus have to go this way.
That’s kind of my point. They require more parts, more work, more money and have more points of failure. Comparing the two, there is a wide range in quality in v8 engines as well. A lot of cheap iron v8s top 1 million miles. It’s just much easier to make a simple 527cu in v8 and as long as it’s lubricated there is really no reason for it to ever stop running. No valve clashing with pistons, no blowing head gaskets, no crazy heat to dissipate, no computers, no sleeves, no timing belts. I also really enjoy what comes out of the oppression of the Japanese government. But even in a Honda I prefer 2.0 na over a single cam turbo. It’s just not going to break as much. Even an engine that has been built for turbo, a 500hp 4 cylinder is a lot of heat and it all has to come out of 4 cylinders instead of 8. The turbo system has more failure points in the cooling system. That is usually the difference between a 300k mileage motor and an odometer rolling over. Maybe a 200hp 4 cylinder with 3-8bls of boost and high end components and upgraded cooling system should last as long as the computer in the car. But not a 500 hp on a 100cu in 4 cylinder with 20bls + of boost. That will not last as long as an na v8. Toyota has given up on manufacturing motors. They said “this is too hard, let’s just buy one.”😅
One thing people always overlook when building a racecar is reliability. That V8 will be around mch longer than the 4cyl. It's called block longevity. The V8 has more displacement to disperse that power. meaning less stress on the engine
While you’re not wrong it does matter. Each cylinder in the 4 is making 125hp Each cylinder in the v8 is making 62hp. That’s ALOT less stress on individual rods, bearings, and pistons
No he’s got a point. Stock 5.3s and 6.0 LS’s are hitting 300k on the regular. Ever see an untouched ej20 or 25 with that many miles? The 4cylinder is making 125hp per cylinder. The v8 is making 62hp per cylinder. That’s literally half the stress
@@zachlemay88 maybe i worded it wrong but it goes through more air during the same amount which basically means it's simulating a bigger engine(kind of, lol)
@@zachlemay88 The average US semi truck makes 300-600hp and 2000-3000ft-lb of torque and they dont even run 40psi. This 40psi 4cyl would either have diesel block and rotating assembly and still somehow revs to 8k rpm, or cost 6figs, or both. I like(and own) boosted cars and V8's, this comparison just isnt realistic and seems meant to glorify the turbo engine and bash V8's. Both have their advantages and disadvantages.
@@Dubz0408 Im not saying its realistic.. I was just answering the comment. The whole point of the video is to compare 4 vs 8 cylinders. In order to do that he needed to pump 40psi to have even power
I'm a turbo fan but being realistic that i4 would be a nightmare to drive. It has a lot of boost which translates into a lot of lag. No torque under 3k rpm, so it'd get super bad gas mileage. But for racing purposes the i4 is lighter and has a better powerband.
this type of engines are great for rally cuz they are known for getting up to speed fast in short distances between corners. in rally u typically stay at red line in optimum range of turbo.
i think the 190 test in particular would be better if the redline wasnt ridiculously high for a v8. definitely fell out of its happy spot rpm wise. even if the redline was at 8k so the comparison was more apples to apples i think its not a good comparison.
@@b-chroniumproductions3177 Yes I know. But there are different ways to get the same power curve with different engine torque and rpm limit. So high torque is not necessarily a lot of power.
V8 had a different power curve, thats why when shifting it always slowed down compared to the i4. The i4 wasnt "slightly" lighter it was 60kg lighter wich is a lot of difference. The i4 turbo also had lot more torque what really matters in 0-62mph for example
500hp and 40 pounds of boost, thats not possible unless its a heavy 4cylinder to hold that amount of power. second in order for a v8 to hit 8000 rpm it needs to be very light weight, as light as a normal i4 in order to hit a high rpm threshold. third, theres something called turbo lag and that i4 wont hit 0-60 in any record time unless it boost launch first, if that big turbo lets it boost Intime of course, (can take from 5 seconds to 15 seconds to get the boost)
When you’re racing the turbo 4 cylinder is going to be at an advantage because it’s always in the power band, when it would be at a severe disadvantage would be in the lower rev range.
Interesting test, and for the most part it went exactly how I guessed it would because of weight. The top speed being the same is obviously due to both being 500hp with the same aerodynamics. I'm a huge V8 fan but I drive 4-cylinder cars IRL so I don't have a dog in the weird, predicable fight that's going on in this comments section. That said, although there are some 1000+hp four-bangers, the 4-cylinder here has be pretty close to being a max effort build, so I'd take the lazy/lazier V8.
@@Thatone188 I am talking a sustainable build and idk much about Honda engines. Will it cope like that for long? I mean, you can probably get 500hp out of many car engines if you don't mind measuring engine life in seconds. Also, you'd probably need a fuel system right, as I doubt the K series or any 4-cylinders come with 500 hp rated fuel rails?
@@brendanfecteau3891 Fair enough, but I still have my doubts. As I said before, I don't know enough about that engine to say anything about it specifically. However, I've seen bolt on modified engines produce way more than stock and hold together well until they're stripped down and it's found that they've been hurting for some time. Usually the rotating assembly gets chewed up by excessive friction. They make 'em with some margin but tuners usually exceed that and should really be changing rings, compression, etc. especially when pushing high boost.
@@unsafevelocities5687 in many parts of the world i think it's cheaper to build an i4 to 400 hp than to LS swap anything. where i live though, for getting power, a turbo JZ is the easiest thing to have.
That was pretty interesting, but I'm curious on what would happen if each engine was built to maximum HP or toughness. As I imagine one will out produce the other but the other may out survive it's counter part. Also would be interesting to see the stock engines as they are rn just redlined and see which one last longer or cools better, rather it stationary or moving. Anyways good work and keep the science that no one else wants to answerer or ask a coming.
A NA V8 v.s. a Turbo 4. Not a very good comparison because the power band layout is alot different under boost compaired to NA. Look at the power curves.
The gears needed to be optimized for the low end torque of the v8 Notice in the last 190 pull the V8 started reeling in the turbo pretty hard it likes the low to mid range whereas the turbo car liked high end
Even then the v8 can't keep up with the i4 as long as the i4 stays within the powerband of the turbo. The power curve of the i4 above 4500 is just much better for performance. Under 4500 it's a different story. But as long as the i4 can keep it's rpm over 4500 the v8 can't compete. The power curve of the v8 is just worse.
I still love the v8 and if it were to be turbo/supercharged, it would give the already turbo'd 4 pot a run for its money, since you cannot push the 4 even more because its durability will go down
Not really lol if we’re talking ab turbo power then it will always favor les cylinders if the turbo is trying to support all 8 cylinders then ur going to need a bigger turbo and that leads to unreliability lol
@@gabecarter6599 the original comment was talking about reliability but yeah obviously youre doing this to make a race car so reliability doesnt matter and 4 bangers pretty much always win
What simulation are you running? I would love to have it so I can play around with different settings and stuff. I love how you kept it more real life. Turbo cars tend to have more torque than na v8 so even with identical HP numbers the torque numbers typically are favor of the Turbo. Making everything dead even wouldn’t be true to real world and I like that you kept it that way.
A more realistic example would be the V8 only revs to 6500, makes 500hp and about 450tq. The 4-cyl would rev to 8000 and that 500hp would calc to about 375tq. It would also have not that much until about 3500rpm, then quickly rise until peak boost at 4000-4500 or so, while the V8 would be laying fat numbers starting around 2500-3000. Also to compensate the different RPM, the 4-cyl would have shorter gearing (just the final drive so the trans space between gears matches) to the point where each one has the same top speed in each gear. 4-cyl would prob win. V8 would be more fun to drive without changing gears as much, and more controllable in the midrange, but kinda less controllable down low. 4-cyl would prob get better gas mileage, especially if you're going easy on it. Oh, I forgot to mention displacement: This is assuming about a 2.0L 4-cyl and a 6.0L V8. EDIT: Yeah the powerbands you have are way wrong, lol.
I have a 2005 Pontiac GTO with the 6.0L LS2. The only thing done to it power-wise is longtube headers and a different intake. I got it dyno'd and it was making 350 something HP and 400 something torque to the wheels. But I know my engine is an outlier. Low on HP but high on torque for what that shop usually sees. Every engine is unique I guess
I don't want to sound rude or serious, but I think I would choose the turbocharged Inline 4, there are a lot of advantages its primary balance is balanced making for a turbo application to be reliable, since its an engine that is meant for turbocharging it has no problem to be run even under stressful circumstances, The inline 4 would probably have greater fuel economy with being light and same performance like the v8.
@@drspeed2006 This going to be Controversial but I prefer a small displacement with less cylinder engine for the obvious reasons just like my first reply.
@@drspeed2006 I’m not the guy you were responding to but this is a pretty low value point to me. I don’t like drawing a ton of attention from bystanders so my IRL car has almost full bolt-ons but stock catback because I’d rather just be fast than broadcast to the world I’m going fast. There’s lots of bad sounding i4s but there’s plenty that sound great and i’d much rather have the off boost mpg of a 2.0 liter too
Whenever I wanted to average out my automation cars 0-60 I usually averaged it from 3 tries. The results can vary by half a second depending how ur driving it and reaction time, wheel spin.
I would’ve thought 40 pounds of boost and a huge weight difference would’ve been enough to completely outclass the v8… but there’s not that big of a gap besides top speed times
I got one want to say that v8 sounds insanee. That beginning pull put a smile on face. Even the little in-line too. Love hearing engines smack that redline.
First off cool video so no hate here just have some curiousity. What v8 was used in this test vs what i4 turbo? I know the v8 was dohc engine why not base it off an LS engine. Weight wise would have been closer. Why take to v8 past it's power band? Why use a manual? Auto would have been better for all test but top speed. Also would help with consistency. Why not improve the traction so they can both dead hook when needed? This would also make the test more consistent. It would be a cool test if you took the same 2 cars but gave each one an optimized setup for that particular engine.
Let's be real here everyone will pick the v8 over the i4 purely on sound alone. Plus take that turbo off and you'll pick the v8 because it's easier to make 500 without a power adder
A single number describes nothing. The area under the curved used for each run combined with traction and weight determines the winner. They’re notme here close, but I do appreciate the video!
The V8 would need more displacement and a lower redline to really be competitive. That torque distributed over the entire power curve is what makes a car faster.
All cars make peak power at redline, but as this simulation is its actually very poor, the v8 would've won every category except for top speed. (Also v8 is doing 8000 rpm which is not normal so it is a light weight v8 engine being used)
In most turbocharged cars, peak boost is a couple of RPM (x1000) before the red line, then it slowly tapers off. Here, the turbo car maintained peak boost regardless of the RPM. Not exactly true to a real-world scenario.
The only thing this game lack is the turbo realism, once you go past that 600hp mark it gets tricky. The more power you make the more lag you're going to see. To the plp who don't understand this is that psi does not mean power also and theres a cap to turbos! An precision 6466 1.15 A/R T4 turbo at 18psi will outflow an Garrett gt3076r 0.61 A/R T3 turbo at 27psi. In a straight line the 6466 will eat up the 3076r but at corners the 3076r will dominate and why? Bc the 3076r is a smaller trim turbo and there is a little to no lag vs the 6466 where it has alot of lag but has top end. What I'm trying to say here is that a tiny turbo is good for low/mid end but will fall on its face on the top end and the big turbo is just all top end.
Mate, I would like to see a comparation of acceleration with the same car, same engine, same weight, and just changing gearbox ratio. How much faster is a short ratio gearbox?
Pretty accurate except for the burnout....that part is completely false. I can promise you a 500hp v8 will win that every time over a boosted 4 banger of equal hp. The torque even with boost just not there until you get some really good wheel speed in the burnout...and on dry pavement you will struggle getting it lol. Where a v8 will just jump up and burn for days....done it with much lesser hp on drag radials, it'll still smoke show for days.
that 4cyl should've took forever to spool up meaning it cant do anything until it passes 4k to 5k rpm(anything below 2k rpm will be the same as a N/A 4cyl), second, that must be a very heavy 4cyl in order to handle 500hp and 40psi of boost at 8k rpm, so ironically it be the same weight as a v8 engine. third, its only a turbo system, you'd loose all your boost as soon as you let go of gas when shifting. 8cyl must be very lightweight to hit 8k rpm so must actually weigh less than that heavy 4cyl, v8 will also win at low end torque
You can tune an Inline 4 to make 500 or so horsepower, but with the Inline-4 engine, you only have limited selections before too much horsepower can damage the engine (Also known as over-torque) For example. My Sonata's Inline 4 engine, with every possible horse powered upgrade, my potential horsepower would be around 400 or so. If my Sonata was a V6 or a V8, with the upgrades on my inline 4, I would have a higher potential horsepower value. Basically what I am saying is that if you can tune an engine, but for you to have higher potential horsepower, you gotta do an engine swap
My Honda Accord Wagon's K20A6 can only support up to around 300-350HP on stock internals, and is the weakest of the K-series engines stock. If i had the popular K24 version (idk which is popular in US) I'd be able to hit 450-500 on stock internals. With upgraded internals these have been pushed way past 800 reliably, but then again any more than 400-ish HP is pointless in my eyes
I don't understand the argument about the "there's no replacement for displacement." Like a i4 turbo is going to beat a V8 turbo (I know the V8 in the video isn't a turbo). 2.0L i4 turbo will make more power then a 1.6L i4 turbo. More volume for more air for more fuel FOR MORE POWER!!!
With the same power output the bigger engine will always be more reliable because of the size. It can absorb the power better.Less stress for the engine overall.
The problem is that you have the v8 cars TQ too low through the rpm band. You're telling me a i4 on 40 psi is making more TQ than a v8 at 4k rpm? It should be the other way around. My c5 z06 made 300 ft/lbs of TQ at 2500 rpms when it was bone stock. The TQ curve on a LS-1/3/6/7 v8 is not a gradual linear curve up the RPM band but more of a flat curve with a wide camel hump between 3500-6000 rpm. I suggest you look up some dyno graphs for some bolt LS engines and try to replicate that unless you're factoring for more of a European small displacement V8 which based on the 8250 rpm redline seems like you are. But look at the GT350 mustang that revs to 8250 rpm. It also makes over 300 Ft/lbs of TQ at 2500 rpm and has more of a wide camel hump TQ curve than linear. Your TQ curve on the i4T isn't too bad actually. It looks pretty good though I would argue it's making TQ a tiny bit early for 500hp/400tq 40 psi (not sure what turbo you'd run 40 psi on and only make 500 hp lmao) but still a pretty realistic curve. I would think peak TQ would be more like 5000 rpm rather than 4500 rpm but the 300 tq at 4000 rpm seems about right. Maybe just peak the TQ for that at 5000 rpm and drag the line over from 4000 rpm up a little more gradually.
V8 has bigger Torque, so on the uphill, it´ll be faster than the V4 engine.. On the other hand, 4-cylinder will faster reach the top speed and overall be faster on drag race than the V8, because it´s lighter :)
If you are running a 40lb psi setup then your either stupid or have the money for forged rods pistons heads plus a good block. At that point a lot of it would have to be custom seeing as the aftermarket community is still so limited. But if you can fab good you could probably make it last a while.
What different between 2 engine with same hp but different capacity Ex 2.3litre twin turbo 190hp 450nm vs 3.0 litre Variable-geometry turbochargers turbo 190hp 450nm thanks in advance
gearing was off on the v8 car but this does bring up an interest question of reliability okay in this test turbo wins in speed but how long can it do this before reliability issues creep in
Kinda unfair if you put turbo against an NA engine. Turbo will always produce more torque even with the same power. And in this case, Inline 4 TC is obviously much lighter than the V8.
Плюсы l4 ++ вес, момент на вверхах, расход топлива за счёт объёма и веса Минусы -- мало момента снизу, меньшая прочность мотора (лол, в beamng drive вы быстрее разобьёте машину, чем мотор) Плюсы v8 ++ надёжность, момент снизу, можно тягать тяжёлый вес, эластичность атмосферного мотора Минусы -- кушает много топлива, тяжёлый
