I need help understanding a V12
02-02-2008, 08:04 PM
#1
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
I need help understanding a V12
What exactly explains why a V12 is more powerful than a V8 or V6? Does the same number of pistons fire for a set number of flywheel rotations in a V12 as does a V6? If so, I can't see how a V12 has any advantage. In that case , you simply have two V6s welded together. The ratio of flywheel turns to piston movement is the same. On the other hand, if all 12 cylinders fire during a set number of flywheel turns as the V6, then I can see how more power is generated with the V12 at more ease than the V6.
Because in the latter scenario, you have twice as much fuel burning, twice as many explosions, twice as many power strokes as the V6, yet the same amount of flywheel movement, hence more power.
I know the real answer may not be as simple as the way I asked the question, but what is everyone's take or thoughts on this?
Because in the latter scenario, you have twice as much fuel burning, twice as many explosions, twice as many power strokes as the V6, yet the same amount of flywheel movement, hence more power.
I know the real answer may not be as simple as the way I asked the question, but what is everyone's take or thoughts on this?
02-02-2008, 08:14 PM
#3
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
02-02-2008, 08:25 PM
#4
Super Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: East Bay Area, CA
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 20 Likes
on
9 Posts
2013 SL 550 (Previously 2012 Porsche Panamera Turbo-S, 2015 Tesla P85D, 2007 S600, 2005 E55 AMG)
What exactly explains why a V12 is more powerful than a V8 or V6? Does the same number of pistons fire for a set number of flywheel rotations in a V12 as does a V6? If so, I can't see how a V12 has any advantage. In that case , you simply have two V6s welded together. The ratio of flywheel turns to piston movement is the same. On the other hand, if all 12 cylinders fire during a set number of flywheel turns as the V6, then I can see how more power is generated with the V12 at more ease than the V6.
Because in the latter scenario, you have twice as much fuel burning, twice as many explosions, twice as many power strokes as the V6, yet the same amount of flywheel movement, hence more power.
Because in the latter scenario, you have twice as much fuel burning, twice as many explosions, twice as many power strokes as the V6, yet the same amount of flywheel movement, hence more power.
The V6 is somewhat compromised in that the advantages of the inline 6 layout are traded for tighter packaging. Look at this page which gives you a good sense of the various advantages and disadvantages of the various layouts..
http://www.e31.net/engines_e.html
In terms of firing orders there are many different permutations depending on the V12 design... the actual fuel consumption is going to be governed as much by the cubic capacity of the engine - the volume of air and fuel injected into the cylinders. Note there is not that much difference between the fuel consumption of a V8 6.2L AMG or a V12 5.5L... No reason why a large V8 can not be more powerful than many V12's (look at Bentley) but not necessarily as smooth...
There are some disadvantages to the V12 design also such as expense of construction and maintenance and parasitic forces like additional friction from the extra piston rings and cylinder interactions etc... In general though the V12 design is as good as it gets...
Chris
Last edited by cjf_moraga; 02-02-2008 at 08:29 PM.
02-02-2008, 08:28 PM
#5
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Let me try to rephrase my question with another scenario. If the flywheel needs 4 pistons to fire to make it turn once, that would mean an 8 cylinder would go through its sequence once to make the flywheel spin twice. Now, on a V12, does that mean 6 pistons fire for each flywheel spin (or all 12 for 2 spins)? If so, the V12 is utilizing more fuel to obtain the same result (2 revolutions of the flywheel).
In that case I can see how a V12 is more powerful because more pistons fired in order to get the same result (2 spins of the flywheel). It's just that the workload is spread out over a higher number of pistons, hence a smoother running machine.
BUT, if the ratio of piston firing of a V12 is the same as the V8, power would be the same but the flywheel would spin 3 times for a V12 (1/3 more pistons) instead of just 2 times for the V8.
In the real world, the flywheel probably spins twice per cycle of cylinders. 8 explosions for the 8 cylinder and 12 explosions for the 12 cylinder. If so, and assuming their is a 1:1 ratio, I then could understand how a V12 is more powerful than a v8.
In that case I can see how a V12 is more powerful because more pistons fired in order to get the same result (2 spins of the flywheel). It's just that the workload is spread out over a higher number of pistons, hence a smoother running machine.
BUT, if the ratio of piston firing of a V12 is the same as the V8, power would be the same but the flywheel would spin 3 times for a V12 (1/3 more pistons) instead of just 2 times for the V8.
In the real world, the flywheel probably spins twice per cycle of cylinders. 8 explosions for the 8 cylinder and 12 explosions for the 12 cylinder. If so, and assuming their is a 1:1 ratio, I then could understand how a V12 is more powerful than a v8.
Last edited by trumpet1; 02-02-2008 at 09:35 PM.
02-02-2008, 08:31 PM
#6
Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sugar Land Texas
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ML320
in a six cyl engine every two revolutions of the crankshaft all six cylinders fire(power stroke),
on a 12 cyl engine every two revolution of the crankshaft all 12 cylinders fire.
twice as many power strokes twice as much power,
6 cyl are 3.0 liters
12 cyl 6.0 liters
a 12 cyl will be alot smoother running and the power curve will also go up quicker, smoother accelaration, doesn`t have to work as hard as a 6 cyl to achieve the same eng rpm`s,
hope that explains it better
on a 12 cyl engine every two revolution of the crankshaft all 12 cylinders fire.
twice as many power strokes twice as much power,
6 cyl are 3.0 liters
12 cyl 6.0 liters
a 12 cyl will be alot smoother running and the power curve will also go up quicker, smoother accelaration, doesn`t have to work as hard as a 6 cyl to achieve the same eng rpm`s,
hope that explains it better
02-02-2008, 08:38 PM
#7
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
I know this seems like a stupid question and appears to have a simple answer but if the ratio of piston firing to the number of flywheel spins are the same for any given engine, you could have a V32 under the hood and net the same power.
Last edited by trumpet1; 02-02-2008 at 08:43 PM.
Trending Topics
02-02-2008, 08:40 PM
#8
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
in a six cyl engine every two revolutions of the crankshaft all six cylinders fire(power stroke),
on a 12 cyl engine every two revolution of the crankshaft all 12 cylinders fire.
twice as many power strokes twice as much power,
6 cyl are 3.0 liters
12 cyl 6.0 liters
a 12 cyl will be alot smoother running and the power curve will also go up quicker, smoother accelaration, doesn`t have to work as hard as a 6 cyl to achieve the same eng rpm`s,
hope that explains it better
on a 12 cyl engine every two revolution of the crankshaft all 12 cylinders fire.
twice as many power strokes twice as much power,
6 cyl are 3.0 liters
12 cyl 6.0 liters
a 12 cyl will be alot smoother running and the power curve will also go up quicker, smoother accelaration, doesn`t have to work as hard as a 6 cyl to achieve the same eng rpm`s,
hope that explains it better
BINGO! That is what I was looking for. That is what I thought the answer would be and that means the ratio is NOT the same. You're getting twice the number of explosions per revolution of the flywheel.
02-02-2008, 08:47 PM
#9
Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sugar Land Texas
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ML320
on a 4 stroke eng every two revolutions of the crankshaft all the cyl fire,
so if you had a v32 you would have 32 cyl fire for every two revolutions,
the major factor with which would have the most power would be the eng displacement
size of piston and stroke
adding more cyl but keeping the displacement the eng would run smoother and not have to work as hard and your torque would be higher if everything else was equal
so if you had a v32 you would have 32 cyl fire for every two revolutions,
the major factor with which would have the most power would be the eng displacement
size of piston and stroke
adding more cyl but keeping the displacement the eng would run smoother and not have to work as hard and your torque would be higher if everything else was equal
02-02-2008, 09:10 PM
#11
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Actually think of a V12 as two in-line 6's put together... There is a reason that BMW (and MB used to) persists with those beautifully smooth inline-6's.. the 6 cylinder in-line is an optimal design in perfect mechanical balance where all the firing impulses cancel each other out... no need for balancer shafts, large flywheels, or other contrivances to get rid of the out of balance forces... The V12 is simply the smoothest and most vibration free reciprocating design on the market...
The V6 is somewhat compromised in that the advantages of the inline 6 layout are traded for tighter packaging. Look at this page which gives you a good sense of the various advantages and disadvantages of the various layouts..
http://www.e31.net/engines_e.html
In terms of firing orders there are many different permutations depending on the V12 design... the actual fuel consumption is going to be governed as much by the cubic capacity of the engine - the volume of air and fuel injected into the cylinders. Note there is not that much difference between the fuel consumption of a V8 6.2L AMG or a V12 5.5L... No reason why a large V8 can not be more powerful than many V12's (look at Bentley) but not necessarily as smooth...
There are some disadvantages to the V12 design also such as expense of construction and maintenance and parasitic forces like additional friction from the extra piston rings and cylinder interactions etc... In general though the V12 design is as good as it gets...
Chris
The V6 is somewhat compromised in that the advantages of the inline 6 layout are traded for tighter packaging. Look at this page which gives you a good sense of the various advantages and disadvantages of the various layouts..
http://www.e31.net/engines_e.html
In terms of firing orders there are many different permutations depending on the V12 design... the actual fuel consumption is going to be governed as much by the cubic capacity of the engine - the volume of air and fuel injected into the cylinders. Note there is not that much difference between the fuel consumption of a V8 6.2L AMG or a V12 5.5L... No reason why a large V8 can not be more powerful than many V12's (look at Bentley) but not necessarily as smooth...
There are some disadvantages to the V12 design also such as expense of construction and maintenance and parasitic forces like additional friction from the extra piston rings and cylinder interactions etc... In general though the V12 design is as good as it gets...
Chris
Thanks Chris for the link. This really helped too. I realize my Honda Goldwing motorcycle is a "boxer" engine (horizontally opposed 6 cylinder). No wonder it rides so quiet and smooth.
02-02-2008, 09:16 PM
#12
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
02-02-2008, 10:58 PM
#13
MBWorld Fanatic!
Interesting question, trumpet1
Have often wondered what are the major engineering diffces btwn the various V12s on mkt today....like 65/600, 599, Bent, etc....have often heard claims that some engines, perhaps like Bent's, are not as "pure" a V12 design, but more akin to two V6's bandaged together....but never found much of a useful summary to help me better understand those comments....
Have been intrigued by the 63's more impressive tq curve vs the 599 motor....seems like AMG's engine designers are more clever in extracting perf from NA motors....
Also, would be curious what are downsides to bolting biturbos onto V12?...as opposed to a NA, high-tech V12.....if AMG can extract so much tq out of a NA 63 motor, would be curious what tq curves a NA AMG V12 motor could have....
Am considering trading my CL63 for the new SL63 b/c it sounds like AMG has some new ?multi-clutch gearbox (AMG not providing many details on gearbox until Geneva launch)....curious how this gearbox interacts w/motor in terms of changes in shiftspeeds/acceleration....and how this gearbox design will play vs the rumored SL?65 Blk that AMG has begun leaking to press (see car magazine uk online summary of the latest rumors).....
Suspect we may see some interesting twists on the V12 design (and gearbox interface) in this upcoming SLxx Blk (which I definitely plan to get upon launch)....
Have often wondered what are the major engineering diffces btwn the various V12s on mkt today....like 65/600, 599, Bent, etc....have often heard claims that some engines, perhaps like Bent's, are not as "pure" a V12 design, but more akin to two V6's bandaged together....but never found much of a useful summary to help me better understand those comments....
Have been intrigued by the 63's more impressive tq curve vs the 599 motor....seems like AMG's engine designers are more clever in extracting perf from NA motors....
Also, would be curious what are downsides to bolting biturbos onto V12?...as opposed to a NA, high-tech V12.....if AMG can extract so much tq out of a NA 63 motor, would be curious what tq curves a NA AMG V12 motor could have....
Am considering trading my CL63 for the new SL63 b/c it sounds like AMG has some new ?multi-clutch gearbox (AMG not providing many details on gearbox until Geneva launch)....curious how this gearbox interacts w/motor in terms of changes in shiftspeeds/acceleration....and how this gearbox design will play vs the rumored SL?65 Blk that AMG has begun leaking to press (see car magazine uk online summary of the latest rumors).....
Suspect we may see some interesting twists on the V12 design (and gearbox interface) in this upcoming SLxx Blk (which I definitely plan to get upon launch)....
02-02-2008, 11:10 PM
#14
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Interesting question, trumpet1
Have often wondered what are the major engineering diffces btwn the various V12s on mkt today....like 65/600, 599, Bent, etc....have often heard claims that some engines, perhaps like Bent's, are not as "pure" a V12 design, but more akin to two V6's bandaged together....but never found much of a useful summary to help me better understand those comments....
Have often wondered what are the major engineering diffces btwn the various V12s on mkt today....like 65/600, 599, Bent, etc....have often heard claims that some engines, perhaps like Bent's, are not as "pure" a V12 design, but more akin to two V6's bandaged together....but never found much of a useful summary to help me better understand those comments....
I actually went to Dresden Germany two years ago and toured the assembly plant. In the plant , they had a clear transparent W12 engine that was running in extreme slow motion ( a mock up engine). That is a very interesting engine to see in action.
Later that week , a friend of mine and I drove down to Sindelfingen and I got to watch the assembly of the W221s. I never thought just 6 months later I would own one.
02-03-2008, 12:08 AM
#15
Super Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: East Bay Area, CA
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 20 Likes
on
9 Posts
2013 SL 550 (Previously 2012 Porsche Panamera Turbo-S, 2015 Tesla P85D, 2007 S600, 2005 E55 AMG)
Have been researching this topic (especially the question of comparative HP and torque in competing engines) quite a bit Trumpet and WSH...
The V12's on the market today (MB M285/275, BMW N73 etc...) are all custom designed "classic" 60 degree twin bank layouts. A new production qualified NA V12 is always going to be very expensive to develop.
The W12 engineering pedigree is different being derived from essentially two 15 degree narrow angle VW VR6's with their centerlines set at 72 degrees. Excellent engine though - all these engines are. (This engine is turbo-charged for the Bentley but even then only gets up to 479 lb/ft torque)
AMG have done a great job in getting the torque figures that they have out of the 6.2L 63 engine. Going into the fundamentals for a moment... torque is a product of (1) the BMEP (brake mean effective pressure) which acts upon the piston during the power stroke and where (if you deploy it) turbo charging really kicks in. (2) The engines compression ratio which for the AMG 63 engine is a high 11.3. (3) the way the 4 valve timing works... Finally that 6.2 liters of displacement certainly helps... In general an engine designed for peak torque at low revs is inherently more versatile (less gear changing etc) than one designed for high power with torque coming in a lot higher up the rev scale like the Lambo/Ferrari sports oriented V12's... In the balance of different design variables the S63 engine delivers its peak torque at higher revs than the MB V12TT but definitely hits a midway sweet spot... it is a magnificent achievement.
Lambo has a really high revving 6.5L V12 that goes to 640 hp, but peak torque is still low(ish) at around 487. The 599 is similar, 483 hp at 8,500 rpm but only 343 lb/ft torque.. Of course HP and torque are only relevant within the context of the power/weight ratio of the car. For the driving characteristics of heavy big sedans like the S-Class however these types of engine are not really optimal...
MB and/or AMG could certainly build a N/A V12 with all the characteristics of the S63 engine but it is still IMO not going to get close to the torque of the existing turbo-charged engines... As a point of reference the N/A BMW N73 was enlarged for the Rolls Royce Phantom to 6,749 cc and 531 lb/ft torque. That is still considerably under the MB V12's torque and power. (Especially the S65 engine)
It is a particular sweet spot of the current MB M275/M285 V12, that through those twin turbos it achieves its huge torque and power output figures in such a relatively small package. (Both weight and displacement) The only downsides of turbo-charging in the V12 I can see are some additional complexity and requirement for inter-cooling to cool the air charge - so more scope for things to break. This is a pretty mature and well tested technology however.
The more you look at other V12 engines the more magnificent an engine you can see it is. One reason why frankly it seems hard to improve on significantly in this model generation at least... and why even for the new SL, MB are still using this existing V12... it has no competition!
Probably a poor distillation of a complex subject!
Chris
The V12's on the market today (MB M285/275, BMW N73 etc...) are all custom designed "classic" 60 degree twin bank layouts. A new production qualified NA V12 is always going to be very expensive to develop.
The W12 engineering pedigree is different being derived from essentially two 15 degree narrow angle VW VR6's with their centerlines set at 72 degrees. Excellent engine though - all these engines are. (This engine is turbo-charged for the Bentley but even then only gets up to 479 lb/ft torque)
AMG have done a great job in getting the torque figures that they have out of the 6.2L 63 engine. Going into the fundamentals for a moment... torque is a product of (1) the BMEP (brake mean effective pressure) which acts upon the piston during the power stroke and where (if you deploy it) turbo charging really kicks in. (2) The engines compression ratio which for the AMG 63 engine is a high 11.3. (3) the way the 4 valve timing works... Finally that 6.2 liters of displacement certainly helps... In general an engine designed for peak torque at low revs is inherently more versatile (less gear changing etc) than one designed for high power with torque coming in a lot higher up the rev scale like the Lambo/Ferrari sports oriented V12's... In the balance of different design variables the S63 engine delivers its peak torque at higher revs than the MB V12TT but definitely hits a midway sweet spot... it is a magnificent achievement.
Lambo has a really high revving 6.5L V12 that goes to 640 hp, but peak torque is still low(ish) at around 487. The 599 is similar, 483 hp at 8,500 rpm but only 343 lb/ft torque.. Of course HP and torque are only relevant within the context of the power/weight ratio of the car. For the driving characteristics of heavy big sedans like the S-Class however these types of engine are not really optimal...
MB and/or AMG could certainly build a N/A V12 with all the characteristics of the S63 engine but it is still IMO not going to get close to the torque of the existing turbo-charged engines... As a point of reference the N/A BMW N73 was enlarged for the Rolls Royce Phantom to 6,749 cc and 531 lb/ft torque. That is still considerably under the MB V12's torque and power. (Especially the S65 engine)
It is a particular sweet spot of the current MB M275/M285 V12, that through those twin turbos it achieves its huge torque and power output figures in such a relatively small package. (Both weight and displacement) The only downsides of turbo-charging in the V12 I can see are some additional complexity and requirement for inter-cooling to cool the air charge - so more scope for things to break. This is a pretty mature and well tested technology however.
The more you look at other V12 engines the more magnificent an engine you can see it is. One reason why frankly it seems hard to improve on significantly in this model generation at least... and why even for the new SL, MB are still using this existing V12... it has no competition!
Probably a poor distillation of a complex subject!
Chris
Last edited by cjf_moraga; 02-03-2008 at 12:32 AM.
02-03-2008, 12:27 AM
#16
MBWorld Fanatic!
As has been implied, a V12 won't be more powerful than a V8 or even 6 of the same displacement (or effective displacement when forced induction is factored in). There's no substitute for cubic inches.
But it is a whole lot smoother. The lack of vibration at any engine speed is the one of the most noticeable characteristics of the 65 engine. You can cruise at redline and your passengers have no idea you're tearing up the freeway in second gear. It's just a wonderful configuration for a high-torque engine because you get such fluid power delivery. But fewer cylinders can produce the torque as well.
But it is a whole lot smoother. The lack of vibration at any engine speed is the one of the most noticeable characteristics of the 65 engine. You can cruise at redline and your passengers have no idea you're tearing up the freeway in second gear. It's just a wonderful configuration for a high-torque engine because you get such fluid power delivery. But fewer cylinders can produce the torque as well.
02-03-2008, 01:20 AM
#17
MBWorld Fanatic!
cjf, thx for that very helpful summary of V12s
Tq curves are always tricky to translate to real-world mid-range accel; I tend to use 280 fwy on SF Peninsula as one of world's best real-world tq stress tests....esp btwn clumps of early wkday AM commute traffic....
Would argue wt deltas may be a less signif factor for mid-range tq....an S65 is roughly 5000lbs; CL63 4600lb; 599 4000lbs; 997TT 3600lbs...but, if car is cruising at 75MPH (in a casual gear) before a burst of accel is desired, not sure the wt deltas mean as much as they may from a 0 MPH start....
Few variables that I haven't been able to fully figure out (at least in my novice, qualitative "testing" w/the various cars I've had recently)....had a 997TT Tip: great tq curve on paper; but its turbo lag was rather glaring in 280 duty, despite a fast/smart, MB-engineered (Porsche software) autobox, so its "effective" tq was rather weak....599 has solid NA tq curve and linear throttle response, but needed to work the fast F1 box to extract tq (would disct its perf as it takes some effort to extract mid-range accel if caught in wrong gear and/or busy on Btooth)....65's have arguably world's best, most effortless tq deliv, but need to be conscious of road surface and likely traction/stability....on a smooth, dry stretch of 280, 65 is clearly world's ultimate commuting missle...but, if on bumpy stretches, I would tend to "risk-adjust" my throttle application (b/c of likely weak traction/stability)....and have often observed that I drive my CL63 (and my prior '07 CL600) faster (and/or w/more aggressive mid-range accel) than I drove my '07 SL65, b/c of my automatic risk-adjustment (and I also tend to risk-adjust my throttle use for the relatively weaker brake pedal feel of '07 CL600 and '07 SL65)....net, net have found "adjusted" tq delivery of CL63 and 599 to be closest rivals today....will be rather curious if cars like SLxx Blk have a more optimized combination of linear tq/traction/fast&smart gearbox/wt.....
Tq curves are always tricky to translate to real-world mid-range accel; I tend to use 280 fwy on SF Peninsula as one of world's best real-world tq stress tests....esp btwn clumps of early wkday AM commute traffic....
Would argue wt deltas may be a less signif factor for mid-range tq....an S65 is roughly 5000lbs; CL63 4600lb; 599 4000lbs; 997TT 3600lbs...but, if car is cruising at 75MPH (in a casual gear) before a burst of accel is desired, not sure the wt deltas mean as much as they may from a 0 MPH start....
Few variables that I haven't been able to fully figure out (at least in my novice, qualitative "testing" w/the various cars I've had recently)....had a 997TT Tip: great tq curve on paper; but its turbo lag was rather glaring in 280 duty, despite a fast/smart, MB-engineered (Porsche software) autobox, so its "effective" tq was rather weak....599 has solid NA tq curve and linear throttle response, but needed to work the fast F1 box to extract tq (would disct its perf as it takes some effort to extract mid-range accel if caught in wrong gear and/or busy on Btooth)....65's have arguably world's best, most effortless tq deliv, but need to be conscious of road surface and likely traction/stability....on a smooth, dry stretch of 280, 65 is clearly world's ultimate commuting missle...but, if on bumpy stretches, I would tend to "risk-adjust" my throttle application (b/c of likely weak traction/stability)....and have often observed that I drive my CL63 (and my prior '07 CL600) faster (and/or w/more aggressive mid-range accel) than I drove my '07 SL65, b/c of my automatic risk-adjustment (and I also tend to risk-adjust my throttle use for the relatively weaker brake pedal feel of '07 CL600 and '07 SL65)....net, net have found "adjusted" tq delivery of CL63 and 599 to be closest rivals today....will be rather curious if cars like SLxx Blk have a more optimized combination of linear tq/traction/fast&smart gearbox/wt.....
02-03-2008, 02:22 AM
#18
Super Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: East Bay Area, CA
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 20 Likes
on
9 Posts
2013 SL 550 (Previously 2012 Porsche Panamera Turbo-S, 2015 Tesla P85D, 2007 S600, 2005 E55 AMG)
For reference here is a concise summary of available V12 power plants: (Excuse the wonky formatting)
Manufacturer / Size / HP + Torque / Induction / Model
MB 5.5 510 + 612 TT S600/CL600/SL600
MB 6.0 604 + 738 TT S65/CL65/SL65
Maybach 5.5 550 + 664 TT 57, 57S
Maybach 6.0 612 + 738 TT S/62S
Aston 5.9 450 + 420 NA DB9
BMW 6.0 438 + 444 NA 7-series
Ferrari 6.0 611 + 448 NA 599
Ferrari 5.7 532 + 434 NA 612 Scaglietti
Lamborghini 6.5 640 + 487 NA Murcielago
Toyota 5.0 280 + 355 NA Century
W12 (12 cylinders but not a "classic" V12 or a true W either!)
Audi 6.0 450 + 428 NA A8
Bentley 6.0 552 + 479 TT Continental
VW 6.0 444 + 406 NA Phaeton
As is evident, no one else delivers such high HP and torque as MB. It is one basic TT V12 engine design that delivers all of this - the 6.0 AMG variants being bored out slightly for the extra 0.5 liters, plus modifications to the piston stroke, turbo boost pressure etc. In fact during development AMG had some engines running at an incredible 700 hp and 900 lb-ft torque. All of these M275/M285 variants are de-tuned in various ways to fit existing transmissions and for marketing differentiation. These figures do though give an idea of how much power these engines are designed to structurally handle.
...though that Lambo V12 also looks one hell of an engine!
You can also see why Lexus did not bother with the Toyota V12 for the LS600 (ahem) "h"...
Chris
Manufacturer / Size / HP + Torque / Induction / Model
MB 5.5 510 + 612 TT S600/CL600/SL600
MB 6.0 604 + 738 TT S65/CL65/SL65
Maybach 5.5 550 + 664 TT 57, 57S
Maybach 6.0 612 + 738 TT S/62S
Aston 5.9 450 + 420 NA DB9
BMW 6.0 438 + 444 NA 7-series
Ferrari 6.0 611 + 448 NA 599
Ferrari 5.7 532 + 434 NA 612 Scaglietti
Lamborghini 6.5 640 + 487 NA Murcielago
Toyota 5.0 280 + 355 NA Century
W12 (12 cylinders but not a "classic" V12 or a true W either!)
Audi 6.0 450 + 428 NA A8
Bentley 6.0 552 + 479 TT Continental
VW 6.0 444 + 406 NA Phaeton
As is evident, no one else delivers such high HP and torque as MB. It is one basic TT V12 engine design that delivers all of this - the 6.0 AMG variants being bored out slightly for the extra 0.5 liters, plus modifications to the piston stroke, turbo boost pressure etc. In fact during development AMG had some engines running at an incredible 700 hp and 900 lb-ft torque. All of these M275/M285 variants are de-tuned in various ways to fit existing transmissions and for marketing differentiation. These figures do though give an idea of how much power these engines are designed to structurally handle.
...though that Lambo V12 also looks one hell of an engine!
You can also see why Lexus did not bother with the Toyota V12 for the LS600 (ahem) "h"...
Chris
Last edited by cjf_moraga; 02-03-2008 at 02:54 AM.
