What makes an Enzo Engine special?

Well, for one thing - the ZR1 (V8,pushrods) needs a supercharger to match the horsepower of the Enzo and has similar CID. The Lambo, is IIRC 6.4 liters and also a V12 but may be heavier (it sure LOOKS bigger to me, and the car itself is heavier).

Both the Enzo and Lambo engine bays are so much better looking that there is no comparison visually - even most ZR1 owners seem to be a little ashamed of that stupid lexan window in the hood.

 

There is also the fact that the engine is a stressed member and actually part of the chassis much like the LMP1 race cars where the suspension is bolted to the gearbox and the gearbox is fixed to the engine that connects to the chassis allowing easier "race removal and service". It is directly engineered from racing heritage.

 

Nice first post!!

 

+100

 

The production numbers of the Chevy motor and a lot of its parts are a lot higher than the Ferrari(under 500 units) ie; the more you build of something the cheaper you can charge for each piece.
Another way to look at it is if your tooling cost for the widget you are producing are a 100.00 you would need to sell a 100 at a $1.00 a piece to break even, if you sell 2 you would need to sell those 2 for $50.00 ea. to break even.
And yet another way to look at is the other 2 are just what they are at the end of the day and the Enzo at the end of day is well.......a Ferrari and they(Ferrari) knows it, working the ol' supply and demand thang.

 

It's nothing really that spectacular as far as engineering goes. 12 cylinders, with a nice intake and exhaust tuning, with a VERY good engine management etc.

Same as the ZR1 engine and many, many other engines on the market today, that produce huge amounts of power.

The chevy engine to me, is more of a marvel or engineering then the Ferrari. A signall cam overhead valve, push rod engine able to produce that kind of power is quite an accomplishment. I know I know, your thinking "look at all the old musle cars makeing big power" ya,,sure...but not reliably and deffinatly not with the same fuel consupmtion. The ZR1 avoids the gas guzzeler tax!! The Enzo doesn't.

That to me is a huge thing. I would expect nothing less of Ferrari's flagship car, but the GM engineers cannot be discarded into the weeds either.

Ferrari has always been about 10 years behined the curve technology wise. They olny started make aluminum chassis cars in 99 with the intro of the 360. Ferrari is pretty much a name, with a huge following.

 

Great all except for tha fact that an Enzo engine is not a stressed member. It is nothing like a race car. It is mounted very conventionally in rubber isolation mounts just like a Chevy Nova.

 

"Same as the ZR1 engine and many, many other engines on the market today, that produce huge amounts of power.

The chevy engine to me, is more of a marvel or engineering then the Ferrari. A signall cam overhead valve, push rod engine able to produce that kind of power is quite an accomplishment"

"Marvel of engineering".... When GM releases a catalized NATURALLY ASPIRATED engine with over 110HP/Liter, you can say that......
Any monkey can slap a supercharger on an engine and make power, even on a Honda Civic......

Regards,
Fernando

 

The Vette engine began life as a truck engine didn't it? I am sure GM could engineer a hell of a exotic aluminum engine with quad cams and interesting intake designs, but that is not what the Corvette is, is it. If GM did that they would have to call the car something else, just not a Corvette. But for those who are thinking a pushrod V8 cannot produce the same naturally aspirated bhp as a high-spun exotic aluminum V-8-12 or whatever, then you are exactly right. But we are not really comparing apples to apples here are we. So if the goal of this post is to compare a modified truck engine to a purpose driven racing engine than I guess I don't see the point. Although I would be interested in seeing what GMs army of engineers could produce in the way of an exotic high-spinning naturally aspirated engine, I would not count on seeing GM in their current financial situation produce anything any time soon if ever. They are in the business of moving metal at the highest possible quantity they are able to while keeping reasonable enough quality to keep people coming back.

 

The engine in an Enzo isn't directly bolted to the 'monocoque' unlike the F50 or a racecar. It rides on a sub-frame to reduce vibrations.

 

The original ZR-1 was a Corvette, arguably not a Chevy (if you ask any Corvette aficionado). They took a standard C4 and handed it over to Lotus to redesign. Lotus designed a new engine to fit in place of the L98 V8 ("small block") that was powering the standard C4. The result was what GM dubbed the LT5, an aluminum-block V-8 with the same bore centers as the L98, but with four overhead camshafts, 32 valves. Lotus also designed a unique air management system for the engine to provide a wider power band by shutting off 8 of the 16 intake runners and fuel injectors when the engine was at part-throttle, while still giving the ZR-1 375 hp (280 kW) when at wide open throttle.

In addition to the engine, Lotus helped GM design the ZR-1's upgraded braking and steering systems, and helped them pick the settings for the standard "FX3" adjustable active ride control that Chevrolet was fitting to the car, helping to ensure that the vehicle was more than just a modern-day muscle car with a big engine and no real capability on the track.

The engine required special assembly, and that neither the Corvette plant in Bowling Green, Kentucky nor any of their normal production facilities could handle, so Mercury Marine corporation of Stillwater, Oklahoma was contracted to assemble the engines and ship them to the Corvette factory in Bowling Green where the ZR-1s were being assembled. So what you got was a Lotus-designed Corvette with a Mercury Marine Engine.

Cadillac also produced a 4.6 L dual-overhead cam aluminum V-8 called (originally) the L37 or Northstar. (Also LD8 and LH2). It produced between 295 and 320 HP. The LC3 version was 4.4 L, was supercharged and produced 443 to 469 HP.

I've seen the heads off an L37 and actually mistook them for the heads off a QV (until I saw the chain drive sprockets on the cams). A friend was porting and flowing the heads, but he couldn't do much - he figured a 10-15% gain. That's probably why GM went the supercharger route on the LC3.

With all of GM's resources (usta be) you would think they would have the most advanced engine designs on the planet, yet their bread-and-butter motor (the ubiquitous "small block") dates back to the '50s.

 

it's a great engine for sure, but it's not a marvel of engineering. It's part of a modular type family of engines, designed to be able to add or subtract cylinders for a specific application, i.e enzo, 430, quattroporte, etc...

 

Agreed!

Welcome to FChat!

 

Ditto ----- The only road going Ferrari to mount the engine and gearbox as structural chassis members is the F50.

 

To me, the best thing about the Enzo's engine is the "box" that it comes in

 

This whole thread is another example of the FANTASTIC engine choices available with today's engineering! Even the Honda S2000 produces two-horsepower-per-cubic-inch-normally aspirated at 9000 RPM redline! Think about that..............

 

Just 100% wrong

 

Brian, just curious. I'm thinking that the last Ferrari production engine that can truly claim racing DNA was the Boxer. Your thoughts?

Dale

 

Dr Who- The Boxer engine bears no relationship to the F1 engine except the name. It is essentially a 180 degree V12 with seven main bearings. The flat 12 F1 engines had four main bearings to reduce friction and nearly nothing in common with the street Boxer. Even the Boxer name is misleading because it classically refers to a flat engine where cylinders on opposite sides of the crank are firing simultaneously, reducing vibration, hence boxing with each other. You do not hear Porsche or Subarau claiming their flat engines are boxers, but they are as much boxers as the 365 GT4 BB, 512 BB, and Testarossas.

Taz
Terry Phillips

 

Exactly.

Just because it's a 180-degree configuration, that does not mean it's a true "Boxer" engine.

 

Actually, the boxer motor can trace its DNA back to certain F1 engines from the 60s. If you don't believe me, check out Nathan's boxer book.

Frankly, I don't think that there is another production motor after the boxer that can claim the same thing.

Dale

PS And, yes, I know what a boxer motor is.

 

Doc- Whatever floats your boat is fine with me. A stretch, but we stretch all the time. The four bearing flat 12 F1 engines were an evolution of earlier seven bearing flat twelves.The flat crank V8s probably have a better claim, in my opinion. They are still running flat crank V8s in F1.

Taz
Terry Phillips

 

From what I've read, the last true "race-bred" engine to go into a production car was the 206 Dino ---- but, that's strictly F1 lineage.

If you're talking about race heritage in general, surely the Boxer qualifies??? It's a direct derivative of the factory-raced BBLM, and it also shares engine DNA with the 512S and 512M sports racers.

Using the same criteria, and if we are also counting the "Super Ferraris", the F40 would be the most recent road-going car to have a powerplant with a racing pedigree ----- the F40LM, F40GTE (and, wasn't there a 3rd variant?) all were officially raced.

 

Your post reminds me how much I love the ZR1! (the real ZR1, not the one we have today)