Power Wars! Who Actually Has the Best Design?

About this time two years ago, one of our readers posted an analysis of engine design comparing the Japanese and German Luxury/Premium makers to see who really had the technical expertise and finesse to extract the maximum power out of their designs.

Horsepower per liter is the commonly accept formula for gaging the overall efficiency and performance of a motor regardless of displacement. While any manufacture can insert a large power plant into a vehicle and make it go faster, it takes a much higher degree of technological expertise to extract every last horsepower and ft/lb of torque out of any given design. These technological achievements are typically evident across the entire line up, and are not limited to just one or two designs. One can also say these figures may be an indicator of how mature the development of the product lineup is when compared to their peers.

With all of the banter of who is the best, and who really possesses the leading edge. A list was compiled and an analysis of the European Premium Brands and the Big Three Japanese Luxury Brands to see how the figures actually pan out.

The results were surprising to me to say the least. I took all of the current engine specifications for each, and inputted these into a matrix and extrapolated the average horsepower and torque figures per liter for each manufacturer. I included all forms of engines in the overall mix: Turbocharged, Supercharged, and Performance Hybrids and even Diesels, as they are all considered valid technologies.

These results are taken directly from the specification database from Automotive News and the results are computed by the engine capacity and horse power rating listed in the database. The sole exception was the Lexus hybrids power ratings were taken from the web site, since the Automotive News database did not account for the additional electric power capacity.

The calculations were preformed by taking an example of each motor from the database and then adding it to the matrix. If a maker had the same engine but in various tuning states, the average power for the given motor was used rather than have multiple entries for the same motor added needlessly.

Examples:

Acura has two engines a 3.2 liter @ 258 hp and a 3.5 liter @290 hp. The total displacement across the line up averages 3.4 liters and the average horsepower per liter is 81.79 hp per liter.

Infiniti however has two variations of the 3.5 liter (275hp and 306hp) these are averaged together and yield an average of 291hp for the 3.5 liter and that figure is added to the matrix for that particular motor.

And the ranking are:

Power per Liter (hp)
1st 83.86 Mercedes
2nd 83.25 Audi
3rd 82.64 Jaguar
4th 81.79 Acura
5th 80.64 BMW
6th 80.04 Volvo
7th 78.27 Lexus
8th 76.94 Infiniti

Torque per Liter (ft/lb)
1st 88.89 Mercedes
2nd 83.24 Jaguar
3rd 82.35 Volvo
4th 77.05 Audi
5th 76.38 Lexus
6th 75.50 Infiniti
7th 73.20 BMW
8th 72.99 Acura

Average Engine Displacement across the lineup (liters)
1st 4.3 BMW
2nd 4.2 MB
3rd 4.1 Audi
4th 4.0 Infiniti
5th 3.7 Lexus
6th 3.6 Jaguar
7th 3.4 Acura
8th 3.1 Volvo

As you can clearly see those with less effective designs tend to trail in the matrix. But one interesting note is that while BMW has the largest average displacement across the lineup, the designs typically don’t translate into leading examples of horsepower efficiency.

So who really has the edge, the Europeans or the Japanese?

* memo * The figures are for passenger cars only, no SUV or truck power trains were considered.

gsh23 - 6/13/2007 3:23:56 PM

+4 Boost

highest average displacement by BMW, but 5th overall HP/Liter and 7th overall torque/Liter...LOL

kudos to audi for making a good showing, but winner is benz =)

Agent009 - 6/13/2007 3:58:48 PM

0 Boost

That would be pointless. Because then you segregate the alternate technologies.

Do you really call a comparison of a hybrid to nothing fair. It all has to take into consideration all avenues to be considered a valid technology.

Where do you draw the line?

LexSucks - 6/13/2007 4:01:26 PM

+1 Boost

HP per liter is a seriously flawed statistic when comparing NA engines with FI engines. As far as I’m concerned Torque curve and peak power are what makes an engine exciting. Getting good fuel economy (without using cylinder deactivation or forced gear shifting Ala Corvette) makes that engine design “effective”. This is where BMW and I hate to say this, Lexus shines. Audi and MB seems as though they don’t care about fuel mileage, and making efficient High Horsepower cars. As much as I like Audi, thier current V8 engines are inefficient and thier 6-cylinder engines are relatively underpowered. You can say the same about MB as well.

Agent009 - 6/13/2007 4:05:45 PM

+1 Boost

A fuel economy article is coming but cylinder deactivation is a valid technology just as adding a hybrid power train is.

moto - 6/16/2007 11:00:10 PM

+1 Boost

So what this shows is that a manufacturer that makes two economy engine models for every one ultra-high performance engine should be penalized in these standings? Has Mercedes engine expertise fallen since it introduced Smart urban cars? Once again, this is too broad an analysis to be meaningful.

The only way you can "rank" engines is to analyze specific engines, scoring them on multiple objective measures -- not just peak horsepower and peak torque. Peak numbers don't tell you anything about responsiveness, torque and power curves, fuel economy, mass, reliability, cost, etc...

Agent009 - 6/13/2007 3:25:38 PM

+1 Boost

Ok, so why is the Infiniti VQ motors always on the best engines list year after year when it ranks dead last in hp per liter and way back in the pack for torque output.

1970toyotamarc - 6/13/2007 4:02:16 PM

+1 Boost

how is 306hp from 3.5L dead last? Isnt that 87.4? Sounds pretty good to me. Not as good as the 3 series, I know, but still better than the Benz V-6, A4 V-6, Jag V-6, and others. no? am i wrong?

Agent009 - 6/13/2007 4:30:59 PM

+1 Boost

There is more than one variation of that motor.

1970toyotamarc - 6/14/2007 10:25:35 AM

+1 Boost

Yes I guess they are still using the lower output version in the M.

gsh23 - 6/13/2007 3:28:21 PM

+2 Boost

because for the price of a C230 you can get the 300+ hp VQ.

Agent009 - 6/13/2007 10:01:03 PM

+3 Boost

And the end result is the most effective use of technology

1970toyotamarc - 6/13/2007 3:56:16 PM

-3 Boost

I have no problem with all the superchargers and turbochargers needed by some mfrs to get decent power. What I dont like about this comparo is that Lexus will always get nailed because of one engine, the 4.7L truck engine that powers TRUCKS. Infiniti has the same problem with its truck. Of the other brands only one sells a truck, the G500, so the comparison should not include the trucks. If you take trucks out of the equation, Lexus average rises to 84.7, which would put it number 1. (Tho taking out the G500 from MBZ would probably move them up a bit too.) BTW, I obviously am not calling CUVs trucks. The RX, X5, FX, XC90, ML, etc are all car-based, and should be included.

Agent009 - 6/13/2007 4:00:05 PM

+1 Boost

The truck engines were not included this is only passenger cars motors.

I will add a memo to the article to clarify.

1970toyotamarc - 6/13/2007 8:11:45 PM

-1 Boost

then your Lexus averages dont add up.

I mean hello, 3.5L for 306hp (IS), 3.5L for 340hp (GS450h), 4.6L for 380hp (LS460), 5.0L for 438hp (LS600h).

1970toyotamarc - 6/13/2007 8:18:53 PM

+1 Boost

You know, I havent been counting the 4.3L in the GS, as from what I understand, it has essentially been phased out and anyone still wanting one needs to order it. That still makes it 82.8 in my Math.

Agent009 - 6/13/2007 10:44:48 PM

+1 Boost

Toyotamarc- Why are you counting the LS460H 5.0 liter. It isn't even on the market yet? Try to find it on the Lexus site.

But you are correct the database doesn't have it yet.

Agent009 - 6/13/2007 10:48:28 PM

-1 Boost

Toyotamarc- The database has the following entries for Lexus.
Liter HP
2.5 204
3.5 272
3.5 340
3.5 303
3.5 306
4.3 288
4.3 290
4.6 380

If you avg the same size power plants you get

2.5 204
3.5 305 Avg
4.3 289 Avg
4.6 380

I imagine you don't like to avg the outputs because it lowers the gross figure. I can see that.

But remember it handicaps the others as well. If you take the raw figures then Lexus "jumps" to 80.11 hp/liter but the others actually jump more, and Lexus is left at next to last place scratching the bottom of the barrel with Infiniti.

1970toyotamarc - 6/14/2007 11:00:27 AM

+2 Boost

Clearly I forgot about a couple of the models still using the older engines. My bad. Ttaking you numbers and averaging them, I still get a higher average, 80.9. Now adding the hybrid 3.3L and the hybrid 5.0L, the average jumps to 81.7. I just simply do not know how you do your math, beacuse even sampling a couple other brands, I get higher numbers. And I dont need an explanation, I will take it on faith that whatever calculating you do for one, you are calculating the same for the others, making the rankings end up roughly the same.

"I imagine you don't like to avg the outputs because it lowers the gross figure. I can see that."
Dont be so presumptuous, I would expect that any way one calculates for one brand, one woul do the same for all.

I guess I'll just have to refrain from this argument until Lexus drops the outdated 4.3 litres, and spices up their line with the F models.

Agent009 - 6/13/2007 4:40:18 PM

+1 Boost

They did get credit for it and the 275 hp version as well.

But for the record even with the unadjusted figure for Infiniti they still ranked dead last. The relatively weak 4.5 liter killed them

Agent009 - 6/13/2007 4:45:20 PM

0 Boost

Don't forget it is about design not displacement.

If a 3.0 liter turbo engine out powers a normally aspirated 7 liter then who has the better design?

My vote is the smaller power plant due to the technology and expertise required to develop that power. Displacement has its points but is an easy way to gain output. Just look at the Infiniti VQ.

1970toyotamarc - 6/13/2007 8:13:06 PM

-1 Boost

"Lexus 290hp"
What year are you living in, try 380hp.

Agent009 - 6/13/2007 10:21:20 PM

-1 Boost

DRE3000- That is a great point about factoring and you are correct. But then again I don't see the relevance to it in this comparison. do we need to give a non turbo motor a 1.7x lead in a race

S4cabriofoxone - 6/14/2007 2:20:58 AM

+3 Boost

toyotamarc, SC430 has 288hp and GS430 has 290. Well, both of those have both of the outputs- I don't know which goes to which.

Agent009 - 6/14/2007 8:37:01 AM

-1 Boost

Dre3000- Turbo charging and supercharging are inherently more difficult ways of gaining horsepower. You have many more factors to weigh.

Agent009 - 6/13/2007 10:23:11 PM

+1 Boost

how would you do it? I encourage you to find a better way. In the process you will tee someone off.

Yonder7 - 6/13/2007 7:17:51 PM

+2 Boost

BMW M5 = V10 of 5.0 (5x10=50)litters = 500HP
Mercedes Benz CL 63 = V8 6.2 (6.2x8=49.6) liters = 525HP

Do no talk about torque, Just let say that both engines are natural aspiration.

With Turbos or without them MB is the best guys, even in torque.

Shredmo - 6/14/2007 2:45:52 PM

+1 Boost

Yonder7
Huh?
Where you are multiplying, you should have divided. Did I miss the sarcasm?

Agent009 - 6/13/2007 10:35:53 PM

+1 Boost

You gotta point, but to realistically get that horsepower you gotta be at almost 8,000 rpm and to see that max torque you be at almost 7,00 rpm.

Last years TT with a 1.8 turbo will have 12 less hp but 40 more ft/lbs of torque, plus max torque is at 1750 rpm.

Last time I looked, my tach averaged closer to 1750 rpm than 7000.

The S2000 will win in a drag race but need a lot of shifting in town compared to the smaller turbo. the torque make it difficult to live with. I know I have driven both extensively.

Agent009 - 6/14/2007 8:46:33 AM

-1 Boost

Ricemaster- Forgot to tell you that the S2000 motor is not the highest by any measure.

The garden variety Mazda rotary produces 212 hp out of 1.3 liters for a staggering 163 hp/liter

Sephiroth - 6/14/2007 12:47:09 PM

+1 Boost

a rotary engine has combustion every crank rotation where as a cylinder only has combustion every 2 rotations.

so a 1.3l rotary engine is more like a 2.6l Its somewhat unfair

Agent009 - 6/14/2007 1:03:29 PM

0 Boost

Just as unfair as a turbo or hybrid electric motor? It is an alternate power plant and falls in the same category. The displacement is still 1.3 liters all over the world, it just works differently.

Sephiroth - 6/14/2007 1:16:49 PM

+3 Boost

agreed, there are too many variables and motives (cost, reliability, profit...etc) to have a just comparison.

S4cabriofoxone - 6/14/2007 2:24:55 AM

0 Boost

Interestingly, the N54 (3.0TT) engine in BMWs is great for both of those. It offers over 70 more horsepower than the naturally-aspirated 328i/528i, but (in the 3 Series, at least- haven't checked the 5) mileage only suffers 1mpg. To lay it out:

328i convertible: 230hp, 20/30mpg

335i convertible: 300+hp (we don't know for sure), 20/29mpg.

Pretty impressive, no? So turbos aren't "cheating-" they're just more efficient.

Agent009 - 6/14/2007 8:39:51 AM

0 Boost

Fuel economy does factor in but the problem is most of the engines are in many vehicles with different mileage rates. So that is a different animal all together.

2JZSoarer - 6/13/2007 11:54:00 PM

0 Boost

If you want to hp per liter than you have to give it up for the 1st gen Honda S2000,2.0 liter 240hp-120hp per liter is just awesome!!

Agent009 - 6/14/2007 8:44:10 AM

0 Boost

But it is not the highest

Agent009 - 6/14/2007 8:49:40 AM

-1 Boost

Maybe that is why Lexus ranks lower? Make a less stressed engine and you can gain extra reliability?

The title of the article is "Horsepower" not "MPG" or "Reliability". But those would make good articles.

Matthew1 - 6/14/2007 2:04:52 AM

+7 Boost

Parameters and goals are set out by these heading up a new-car program, and these are things are which engineers must meet.

Contrary to popular belief, engineers don't go out to set new hp/litre records.

The fact is, an engine must suit the character and purpose of the car, its target market and many other factors, such as durability and fuel economy.

The S2000 engine is all well and good, but cannot be applied to anything other than a light sports car, due to its lack of torque and amount of driver effort involved to get it to go fast.

For years, Mercedes and Audi have stuck with superchargers and turbochargers to get massive power and torque as well as keeping the driving style relaxed. (No super-high rpm, lots of shifting etc.)

Often, 'lazy' V8's are designed to be slightly less efficient, increasing durability, tunability (again, target market) and so that they can be mated to an automatic transmission without shredding the thing to bits with high rpm changes.

The fact is, not everyone wants an S2000. It's noisy, it's oil-change intervals are stupidly short, it can be a chore to drive and it severely lacks bottom-end torque.

A Porsche Boxster, then, would suit somebody who wants horsepower and speed, but doesn't have to work as hard to go fast.

Engineers design their cars around these things, and don't go out there to impress nerdy know-it-all Internet bloggers at the risk of alienating costumers by disregarding core brand values and new-car program requirements.

SevorbeupstryIsBack - 6/14/2007 7:57:34 AM

+3 Boost

Great comment, I totally agree.

Agent009 - 6/14/2007 8:51:41 AM

0 Boost

WOW! that made real sense!

Agent009 - 6/14/2007 9:05:29 AM

+1 Boost

While that is an excellent idea, the only problem it you have to narrow it down to a specific class of car to make it truly work. Then proponent will state car "A" is 300 llbs heavier than car "B" and you have to compare and others will say you used the wrong transmission combo, and still others will say that a turbo shouldn't be considered because they don't like them. And don't even get into tire types or aerodynamics.

It gets real messy real quick.

Sometimes a broad stroke is best and deal with the fallout on that level.

Lyall - 6/14/2007 12:19:50 PM

+3 Boost

009,
This is an absolutely HORRENDOUS, and MEANINGLESS yardstick you've proferred. Not only does it NOT give an indication of excellence in engine design, it furthers statistical paper games with ZERO relation to the real world.
Matthew offers an intelligent riposte- well done Matt!
009- I'm assuming you're a car enthusiast, otherwise you wouldn't have that moniker. WHAT on EARTH are you upto, posting weird, rounded off, displacement averaged numbers.
If 001 has an IQ of 140 and you have an IQ of 100- does that give you both an IQ of 120?

Lyall - 6/14/2007 12:19:57 PM

+1 Boost

Agent009 - 6/14/2007 1:04:56 PM

-2 Boost

LOL your brand must be at the bottom?

Lyall - 6/14/2007 12:22:31 PM

+5 Boost

I don't normally capitalize words mid sentence, but sometimes on a blog like this, it can convey EMPHASIS (with a capital E).
009, time out for you. Please go stand in the corner.

Agent009 - 6/14/2007 1:08:37 PM

0 Boost

If you have a problem understanding it then you might want to refer to the detailed explanation here:

http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/POWER1.htm

SupraNeverBack - 6/14/2007 1:30:21 PM

+2 Boost

Right now, Toyota/Lexus make some of the best NA engines, which have not only leading powers and performances, but also leading FE and emissions.

cdoke - 6/14/2007 1:53:56 PM

+1 Boost

Lyall, that is a bit of a flawed comparison. An apt one is if you were comparing the intelligence quotients of those from Autospies and those from Autoblog. If only 001 and 009 were employees of Austospies then their average IQ would be 120. Autoblog would be something less....I mean else :)

The only difference between the two scenarios is that the manner in which the average is calculated in the car instance is a bit more convoluted.

Sure there are some assumptions. This assumes that there is no sort of disproportionate technological attention or neglect relative to the price in a way. Overtly it assumes that there is a sort of mean technological curve that runs from the highest-priced most advanced cars to the cheaper ones, and that basically the principles of the company don't change much in regard to the specific fundamental heuristic set they use to design their engines.

The problem is that if you actually want to do any math you really have to make these assumptions. Even doing probabilities, which would end up discretized, necessitates that you assign a way in which propabilties are determined and essentially you end up assuming the same things. Now, a Monte Carlo simulation could handle that nicely, but I can almost guarantee that it won't significantly differ in results.

And yes, if you calculate an daverage dispaclement and average horsepower and work from there, the results do differ from calculating the parameters for each engine and then averaging. The error between the two however, is not really significant. I checked one [yes only one] but the error was less than 1%.

Lyall - 6/14/2007 1:54:01 PM

+1 Boost

009,
For some time now, I've been enjoying your nearly always excellent posts. So we'll look past this rare blooper. This is a flawed comparo though. No amount of website referrals for detailed explanations can suffice. It's as though someone really thought out a way to make some of the world's best engines look bad, by diluting their strengths with outside variables, and then quoting 'averages' as the main determinant. What on earth does a VQ4.5 V8 have to do with a VQ 3.5 V6? What on earth does an AMG 6.2V8 have to do with a Mercedes 2.2-4cylinder turbo deisel?
Such numerical jugglery falls in the distinct category of HOGWASH.
That said, I look forward to your next post.

Agent009 - 6/14/2007 2:52:27 PM

+1 Boost

The comparison is for the entire maker not a specific engine. I think we can all agree most maker have stellar performers. But the effort here was to identify the entire lineup that is exceptional in hp/displacement. This means all engine in the lineup are judged as a whole.

Agent009 - 6/14/2007 2:55:14 PM

0 Boost

Oops where are my manners? Thanks for the compliments! Your check will go in the mail today! LOL....

Htay7500 - 6/15/2007 10:40:57 AM

+1 Boost

crazylary why?

Htay7500 - 6/15/2007 10:41:32 AM

+1 Boost

crazylary why?

Htay7500 - 6/15/2007 10:41:41 AM

+1 Boost

crazylary why?

M53R - 6/16/2007 1:00:28 PM

0 Boost

BMW has an unfair disadvantage. All their six cylinder engines are 3 litres tuned differently to produce more power or to be more fuel efficient. Other than that, the 3.0l engine in the 330i produces 258hp which is impressive. With the turbo they managed to get 306hp and still keep it fuel efficient. Audi has a 3.2l V6 250hp and MB has the 3.2l V6 231hp. The BMW beats them both. Also look at the M vehicles, 3.2l 6 cylinder 343hp, 5.0l V10 507hp, 4.0l V8 420hp, those numbers are unbeatable.

joegantly - 6/17/2007 12:30:29 PM

+1 Boost

I think the news from Fiat Powertrain Technologies last week, that their new JTDm Twin Stage Turbo engines produce almost 100 HP per litre, will settle the matter of the best design. They claim a 1.9 litre engine producing both 180 HP and 190 HP @ 4000 rpm.
Their JTDm engines are already the bench mark in Europe, perhaps people in the US haven't heard of them?