Jump to content
Create New...
  • William Maley
    William Maley

    Bentley's CEO Says 6.75L Twin-Turbo V8 In Mulsanne Will Be its “Final Home”

      The 6.75L V8 found in the Bentley Mulsanne will be heading out

    Very few engines have a long history of powering various vehicles - the small-block Chevrolet V8 and the Buick 3.5L V8 that would be used in a number of British vehicles. Another one can be found under the hood of the Bentley Mulsanne, the 6.75L (6 and 3/4 in Bentley parlance) twin-turbo V8 can trace its roots back to 1959. But the final curtain call for this engine is coming.

     

    Bentley CEO Wolfgang Dürheimer told Car and Driver that the V8 has found its “final home” in the Mulsanne. The next-generation Bentley flagship would switch to a 12-Cylinder (most likely a W12 one). Keep in mind this isn't likely going to happen until the next decade as the Mulsanne recently underwent a refresh.

     

    This isn't the first time the V8 - known as the L-Series - has been shown the door. Back when BMW owned Bentley in the mid-nineties, the automaker dropped the L-Series V8 and replaced it with one of their own with the new Arnage. Volkswagen would snap Bentley up in 1998 and would bring back the L-Series for the Arnage in the Red Label. The BMW V8 would stick around in the Arnage Green Label. However due to poor sales of the Green Label, Bentley dropped it - engine and all.

     

    Source: Car and Driver

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    The end of an era, but time catches up with everyone or everything in this case.  This engine had a phenomenal run, and it makes sense to go to the W12 and newer V8s that can produce less emissions and similar power.   The six and three quarter liter V8 will always be a legend.  

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I question if Bentley can continue to build an auto with a V8 or even a W12 down the road in the era of strict emissions and no other options for offsetting the poor mpg.

     

    I still think we are in the final years of big turbo V8 and 12s if a car company does not have other EV or hybrids that off set the poor mpg and emissions. Plus Tesla has proven to the world you can have luxury in a pure EV package.

     

    Bentley should go pure EV or just become a page in the history books.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Bentley will not go into the history books, maybe they'll make an EV or hybrid, maybe not.  But VW has enough cars to offset Bentley's guzzlers.  And even then a Bentley Continental V8 gets 2 mpg better than a Chevy Silverado 5.3 liter V8.  Does anyone think the Silverado will go into the history books because of emissions and fuel economy standards? 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Bentley will not go into the history books, maybe they'll make an EV or hybrid, maybe not.  But VW has enough cars to offset Bentley's guzzlers.  And even then a Bentley Continental V8 gets 2 mpg better than a Chevy Silverado 5.3 liter V8.  Does anyone think the Silverado will go into the history books because of emissions and fuel economy standards? 

    The world needs work trucks, the world DOES NOT NEED Bentley.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The world may not NEED Bentley, but the world has people that will pay massive money for a Bentley, and with $25,000 per car margins, Bentley isn't going anywhere.  There will be a 4-cylinder Silverado before Bentley stops making a 12 cylinder engine.  Heck, Bugatti makes a 16-cylinder engine and might be adding a 2nd model!

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Bentley will not go into the history books, maybe they'll make an EV or hybrid, maybe not. But VW has enough cars to offset Bentley's guzzlers. And even then a Bentley Continental V8 gets 2 mpg better than a Chevy Silverado 5.3 liter V8. Does anyone think the Silverado will go into the history books because of emissions and fuel economy standards?

    That's actually a very good point considering the wheelbases are probably similar with how freakin huge Bentlys are meaning a similar CAFE score. But a more modern engine will definitely produce less overall emissions and be cleaner. Edited by ccap41
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The Bentley DOHC V8 even in that 5000+ lb car gets 15/25 mpg.  That isn't too bad given the power output and weight.  The W12 is like 12/20 (still better than the 6.75 liter V8), but they could add in a hybrid system to add a few mpg to either engine.  CAFE has a weird scoring system, size of the vehicle shouldn't matter, fuel economy should.   But a Mulsanne is huge, it has a 129 inch wheelbase, 220 inch overall length.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The Bentley DOHC V8 even in that 5000+ lb car gets 15/25 mpg.  That isn't too bad given the power output and weight.  The W12 is like 12/20 (still better than the 6.75 liter V8), but they could add in a hybrid system to add a few mpg to either engine.  CAFE has a weird scoring system, size of the vehicle shouldn't matter, fuel economy should.   But a Mulsanne is huge, it has a 129 inch wheelbase, 220 inch overall length.

    The footprint of the vehicle does matter though. That's one reason trucks continue to get larger is because as they get bigger and fuel economy stays roughly the same(with the larger engines, not the engines made for fuel economy(2.7 and 3.0 diesel) ) they aren't an issue. It's a ratio basically. 

     

    "First, like the current 2012–16 rules, these new standards are size based. That means there’s a formula to calculate the required CAFE—within limits—for each car based on its “footprint,” which is the product of its wheelbase and track dimensions. In 2011, for example, the required CAFE mpg for the smallest car would not exceed 31.2, while even the largest car was assigned at least 24 mpg. For 2025, these car limits go up to 61.1 and 45.6. Truck mpg is calculated in similar fashion using a different formula. For 2011, the truck mpg ranged from 21.1 to 27.1. In the 2025 proposal, it spans 30.2 to 50.4 mpg. Notice that the formula has been adjusted so that the low end of the range rises less than the high end to help accommodate large trucks.

    Second, because these CAFE requirements are based on size, every car company actually ends up with a different CAFE requirement, depending on the mix and size of cars and trucks that it actually sells. For every model year, each company must calculate the CAFE requirement for all models it markets and then determine the sales-weighted average for its actual mix. Therefore, a company such as General Motors, with its heavy share of large pickups and SUVs, will have a lower CAFE requirement than Suzuki, which primarily produces smallish cars and SUVs."

    http://www.caranddriver.com/features/the-cafe-numbers-game-making-sense-of-the-new-fuel-economy-regulations-feature

     

    "Here’s how it works. A 2010 Honda Accord has a wheelbase of 110.2 inches and a track of 62.6 inches. Multiplying those two figures yields a footprint of 47.9 square feet. If you plug that figure into the government’s formula, you get a target mpg of 35.9 for 2016. The smaller its footprint, the higher the fuel economy a given vehicle has to meet. A current Ford Focus would have to achieve 40.8 by 2016, while a Mercedes S-class will have a bogey of 31.8 mpg. The aforementioned 328i will have to hit 38.2 mpg."

    http://www.caranddriver.com/features/how-automakers-will-meet-2016-cafe-standards

    Edited by ccap41
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    That is why CAFE is pointless to begin with.  It courages car companies to make bigger, thus thirstier cars.  The only way it would work is to set an MPG target, and the entire company portfolio regardless of vehicle footprint would have to average out to that number.

     

    A better option to CAFE is to do a gas guzzler tax and energy efficient credit system.  Suppose you had a number like 35 mpg combined EPA for 2016, and you could adjust it up as years go by, raise it 1 mpg every 2 years or something and get to 40 mpg EPA combined in 2025.    So from the 35 mpg baseline, for every 1 mpg worse than that a car gets, there is a $100 gas guzzler tax.  Thus if a vehicle gets 20 mpg combined EPA, that is -15 mpg times $100 dollars = a $1,500 gas guzzler tax.  A vehicle at 25 mpg would have a $1,000 gas guzzler tax, and so on.  

     

    Then on the flip side there would be a credit for being above the baseline.  So a car with 40 mpg combined EPA would have a $500 credit that the government would pay toward the buyer at time of purchase out of the gas guzzler tax pool, and there would be a maximum credit of $2,500, all pure EV cars would get the $2,500 credit.

     

    Since we know Americans will always buy crossovers, trucks, gas guzzlers, etc, you never have to worry about the gas guzzler tax pool running too low to feed the fuel efficiency credit pool.  The excess every year can be used to fix roads and bridges.  

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • google-news-icon.png



  • google-news-icon.png

  • Subscribe to Cheers & Gears

    Cheers and Gears Logo

    Since 2001 we've brought you real content and honest opinions, not AI-generated stuff with no feeling or opinions influenced by the manufacturers.

    Please consider subscribing. Subscriptions can be as little as $1.75 a month, and a paid subscription drops most ads.*
     

    You can view subscription options here.

    *a very limited number of ads contain special coupon deals for our members and will show

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • Those that cannot accept a multi-cultural world and immigration deserve to lose everything. I will stay professional, but believe that our North American Economy is about to get far worse over the long term than it is now. It is amazing how people do not seem to realize that the first two years of a new president is dealing with the ramifications of the last president. The high inflation was due to the failed policies of those before. We now have low unemployment and a strong economy. Will be interesting to see how it ends.
    • I say, let it get worse.  The people have spoken and this is what the MAJORITY voted for.  He even got the popular vote.  Therefore the people of America have spoken.   This is what they want.  This is what they feel comfortable with.   But I dont want to hear ANY whining from ANYBODY about what possibly may happen with him Him in power.  Fool me once,  shame on you!  Fool me twice, shame on me?   Technically this is how that saying goes.  But you never know. Maybe it really IS the lefty libtards that are the problem.   Hopefully it IS the lefty libtards that are the problem and the Messiah Trump will BE the solution to ALL of our problems.   I will be the first one to apologize if He actually does fix America's and Canada's problems.  And unite ALL of the world and the world gets to sing Kumbaya ALL in unison. Hopefully He is the next coming of Christ.   Keeping my fingers crossed but I aint holding my breath if you know what I mean.   
    • @oldshurst442 This pretty much sums up just how bad it is going to get. Trump's economic plans would worsen inflation, experts say | AP News
    • Not just iPhones... He tariffed Canadian wood the first time around as Pres and the prices of wood skyrocketed so American home builders bought American wood which was and is more expensive than Canadian wood.  I guess that is good for American wood producers. But for the fact that house prices also skyrocketed.  And considering that Canada and US have a more or less good trading thing going on...so not that good.  Not for the US and not good for Canada.  But Donald thinks otherwise. And all the folk that voted for him this time around think that the economy will get better?  I hope so for their sake. But Elon and Jeff B's billions rose quite a bit upon the announcement of his re-election.  I wonder if those  people that voted for him, I wonder if their wealth also rose instantly?    You poor bastards... You have no idea what is coming to you... (those that voted for him.  With the excemption of the rich of course)     Donnie Rides Again
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • My Clubs

×
×
  • Create New...

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search