× 1-800-946-2642 Home My Account Social / Forum Articles Contact My Cart
Shop Now
Select Your Car Type Sale Items Clearance Items New Items
   Forum Width:     Forum Type: 

 Posted: Oct 18, 2017 05:32PM
 Edited:  Oct 18, 2017 07:43PM
Total posts: 1368
Last post: Jul 20, 2023
Member since:Jul 15, 2008
Cars in Garage: 0
Photos: 117
WorkBench Posts: 1
US
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosebud

I was watching “Jay Leno’s Garage” the other day when someone asked him why he thought, historically speaking, different nations had developed engines with such diverse power characteristics...


"MossMotoring" just published this excellent article that explains in detail the evolution of engine design with regard to early tax laws. [link]

 

Michael, Santa Barbara, CA

. . . the sled, not the flower

      Poser MotorSports

 Posted: Sep 4, 2017 11:44AM
Total posts: 9528
Last post: Mar 27, 2024
Member since:Aug 14, 2002
Cars in Garage: 0
Photos: 0
WorkBench Posts: 0
CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by specialist
Quote  "The British tax was based on bore, which resulted in small bore engines with a long stroke. This resulted in engines that didn’t like to rev but developed a healthy amount of torque. "

----really? Maybe its the other way around, British engines likes to rev but developed an un-healthy poor amount of torque....  look at our british minis, they're high revving engines, they go 70mph at an rpm of 9,000 and throttle pedal kissing the floor
Just so WRONG AGAIN! No Mini engines as originally built, could do 9000 rpm without self-destructing. Most would do 70mph (or close to it)  in the 4000 to 5000 rpm range, depending on gearing.

.

"Hang on a minute lads....I've got a great idea."

 Posted: Sep 4, 2017 11:02AM
Total posts: 1188
Last post: Aug 13, 2020
Member since:Aug 9, 2016
Cars in Garage: 0
Photos: 0
WorkBench Posts: 0
Quote  "The British tax was based on bore, which resulted in small bore engines with a long stroke. This resulted in engines that didn’t like to rev but developed a healthy amount of torque. "

----really? Maybe its the other way around, British engines likes to rev but developed an un-healthy poor amount of torque....  look at our british minis, they're high revving engines, they go 70mph at an rpm of 9,000 and throttle pedal kissing the floor

 Posted: Sep 4, 2017 09:18AM
Total posts: 746
Last post: Oct 4, 2017
Member since:Aug 28, 2003
Cars in Garage: 0
Photos: 0
WorkBench Posts: 0
Being stationed in Italy for 12 years (94-2006), I can tell you that the Italian government did tax by liter displacement.  Plus the cost of gas reduced gas guzzlers.  If not for the military gas coupons, to buy the equivalent of an American gallon of gas during this time period equaled $4 to $5.  Parking in the cities were at a minimum, too.  Many roads were narrow.  So several reasons go into smaller cars and engine size and types.  Trying to get the best bang with a smaller displacement was key.

Owned several Fiats while there.  Some were bigger size sedans, but my favorite was the 86 Panda with the FIRE engine.  Mine was 2-wheel drive but lifted 4-wheel drives were used on Mt Etna.    

 

Ignorence is bliss til someone says you are wrong.

 Posted: Jul 21, 2017 02:41PM
Total posts: 1404
Last post: Jun 21, 2018
Member since:Oct 8, 2013
Cars in Garage: 0
Photos: 0
WorkBench Posts: 0
I really don't think the tax laws had any effect after the 40's and by the fifties they were just a memory, I think it has more to do with the road conditions at the time for the basic type of transport required. It was low speed, hard work that counted ie torque over horse power. The road system in the UK at that time bore no similaritys to todays roads! case of horses for courses..............Plus the imbedded British way...........Well we've always done it this way so no need for change for the sake of it................

Mini's are like buses they come along in a bunch

 Posted: Jul 21, 2017 09:06AM
Total posts: 1309
Last post: Feb 13, 2024
Member since:Jan 28, 2005
Cars in Garage: 0
Photos: 0
WorkBench Posts: 0
In some cases, the pushrod engine can be more expensive to build, because of labor. Dealing with lifters, pushrods, cam-in-block, etc. can take quite a bit more time to assemble than OHC engines.

High fuel costs (usually due to higher taxation) favor smaller engines and vehicles in most non-USA countries.

The British bore restriction rule is a standout example of technically ignorant legislation. Why arbitrarily limit the bore instead of overall displacement? This restriction IMHO crippled the English motor industry from the 50's on. As speeds and performance demands increased, high revs would have been desirable, but the bore rule forced the British engine makers to stick with long-stroke engines and put them at a considerable disadvantage, especially for sporty cars.

DLY
 Posted: Jul 20, 2017 04:03AM
Total posts: 2036
Last post: Mar 27, 2024
Member since:Aug 29, 2001
Cars in Garage: 0
Photos: 0
WorkBench Posts: 0
from a practical standpoint, jammed and crammed small roads in European cities meant small cars.
No way your grandfather's Oldsmobile with big Detroit iron could go there, so they had small cars and small engines.

Non-tax related costs surely must come into the equation.
A big flathead V-8 presumably was cheaper and simpler to produce than a double overhead cam fuel injected exotic engine.

 Posted: Jul 20, 2017 03:50AM
Total posts: 9528
Last post: Mar 27, 2024
Member since:Aug 14, 2002
Cars in Garage: 0
Photos: 0
WorkBench Posts: 0
CA
So that explains some of the difference between my current A+ 1275 and the 1275 in the Fiat X/1-3 I bought in 1975. That overhead cam 'oversquare' engine purred like a sewing machine and revved very freely, but lacked grunt on hills. I remember thinking at the time that the Fiat engine would be sweet in a Mini.
For those not familiar with the term, 'oversquare' describes an engine where the bore diameter is larger than the stroke.

.

"Hang on a minute lads....I've got a great idea."

 Posted: Jul 19, 2017 08:10PM
Total posts: 1368
Last post: Jul 20, 2023
Member since:Jul 15, 2008
Cars in Garage: 0
Photos: 117
WorkBench Posts: 1
US

I was watching “Jay Leno’s Garage” the other day when someone asked him why he thought, historically speaking, different nations had developed engines with such diverse power characteristics. He said he can understand how styling was influenced by national aesthetics, but why are power curves so different among nations? Jay said that America’s wide open roads account for our love for large displacement V8s of course, but some of the differences in European engines were the result of unintended consequences of different tax laws.

 

Jay said that in Italy for example, autos were taxed based on their overall displacement. The Italians figured out they could produce, say a 2 liter engine with a large bore and therefore large valves that would deliver a given horsepower at higher RPMs while being down a bit on torque. The British tax was based on bore, which resulted in small bore engines with a long stroke. This resulted in engines that didn’t like to rev but developed a healthy amount of torque. Interesting, no? 

 

Michael, Santa Barbara, CA

. . . the sled, not the flower

      Poser MotorSports