# 2.0 Liter V10!



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

OK, this is not an handsome car, but it has a quite interesting displacement.

The British sports car manufacturer Connaught completed a prototype, which will go into production soon. Type D-GT Syracuse, powered by a *front-mid-mounted 2.0-litre narrow-angle V10 petrol engine*, supercharged to send 300bhp and 274lb ft of torque to the rear wheels through a five-speed gearbox

http://www.autocar.co.uk/News_Article.asp?NA_ID=217799


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

Found the corporate site too

http://www.connaughtmotorco.com/index.html


----------



## iateyourcheese (Sep 9, 2004)

What's the point of doing a 2.0L V10? So many moving parts for so little displacement.


----------



## SONET (Mar 1, 2002)

iateyourcheese said:


> What's the point of doing a 2.0L V10? So many moving parts for so little displacement.


I was thinking the same thing... my guess would be torque. 274 ft-lbs. is pretty darn good for 2.0L, even taking the forced induction into account. :dunno:

--SONET


----------



## iateyourcheese (Sep 9, 2004)

It just seems so inefficient. Compared to an engine with fewer pistons:

Cons:
heat loss would be larger since you have more area per volume

valvetrain losses would be larger

it's way more expensive

Pros:
Would run smoother than a four pot (2.0L is four cylinder territory)

Better exhaust note


----------



## HW (Dec 24, 2001)

quad-cam or dual-cam ?

is the angle as narrow as the VR6's?


----------



## iateyourcheese (Sep 9, 2004)

HW said:


> quad-cam or dual-cam ?
> 
> is the angle as narrow as the VR6's?


The site says it's 22.5 degrees.


----------



## SmoothCruise (Jul 23, 2005)

iateyourcheese said:


> What's the point of doing a 2.0L V10? So many moving parts for so little displacement.


Perhaps they can use a much smaller stroke length for the same displacement, which allows the engine to rev much higher, which is probably how they got the high hp (along with the forced induction.)


----------



## cwsqbm (Aug 4, 2004)

SmoothCruise said:


> Perhaps they can use a much smaller stroke length for the same displacement, which allows the engine to rev much higher, which is probably how they got the high hp (along with the forced induction.)


I'd think you get easily get the same horsepower from a boosted 2.0L S2000 motor. So unless you give me the 300hp NA 2.0L V-10, not really interested.


----------



## nowonder (Dec 4, 2002)

Aren't there 3.0 liter V10 engines in F1 cars? 

--nw


----------



## iateyourcheese (Sep 9, 2004)

SmoothCruise said:


> Perhaps they can use a much smaller stroke length for the same displacement, which allows the engine to rev much higher, which is probably how they got the high hp (along with the forced induction.)


The 300 hp rating is at 7000 rpm, so nothing special. Max torque occurs around 3000 rpm. I still cannot figure this thing out.

I had the same inclination at first. I thought it was some sort of a Formula 1 engine mimic.


----------



## iateyourcheese (Sep 9, 2004)

nowonder said:


> Aren't there 3.0 liter V10 engines in F1 cars?
> 
> --nw


Yeah, but they do 19,000 rpm to make all that horsepower. 300 hp / liter is amazing stuff. I think they idle at 4000 rpm!!!

All that wear doesn't matter on a race engine since the team just replaces it.


----------



## ___lk___ (Dec 21, 2001)

iateyourcheese said:


> What's the point of doing a 2.0L V10? So many moving parts for so little displacement.


short stroke = sky-high redline = incredible pwr/liter numbrs = compact powerhouse


----------



## iateyourcheese (Sep 9, 2004)

___lk___ said:


> short stroke = sky-high redline = incredible pwr/liter numbrs = compact powerhouse


7000 rpm = sky high redline?


----------



## hawk2100n (Sep 19, 2005)

7000rpm= :gay: in a NA sports car. Even boosted, It wouldnt have been hard for them to run it up to 8000, just for the fun of it. Back in the earlier days of F1, there was a 1.5 litre requirement on displacement. Many of the manufacturers experimented with v-12's and even v-16, but most found that these motors had way too much internal fricton, and many ended up with I-8's.


----------



## Test_Engineer (Sep 11, 2004)

SONET said:


> I was thinking the same thing... my guess would be torque. 274 ft-lbs. is pretty darn good for 2.0L, even taking the forced induction into account. :dunno:
> 
> --SONET


But the Mitsubishi Evo does that with 4 cylinders. :dunno:


----------

