 BloodRosesAeolus, your daughter flies.Premium
join:2003-03-17
Louisville, KY | reply to TA63
Re: Displacement vs Forced Induction/ v8/12 vs 4 cyl said by TA63:Horsepower is torque per time. Precisely.
--
Faerie Blessings,
Stephanie - www.GlitterFaerie.net |
|
|
|
| Everything (and more) a person might want to know about the relationship of torque & horsepower is explained here:
»www.4x4abc.com/jeep101/torque.html |
|
| reply to Muscles
said by Muscles:According to the "more educated" posters that's apples to oranges. Since your Rav4 is 4WD and the Mustang is RWD, it moots the point of engine design. Obviously engine design has nothing to do with drive wheels but to each his own There is a replacement for displacement, it's called Toyota. 2010 Toyota Camry SE 3.5-liter DOHC 24-valve dual VVT-i V6; 268 hp @ 6200 rpm/248 lb.-ft. @ 4700 rpm 2010 Ford Mustang V6 4.0L SOHC 12Valve V6 (245 cu. in.) 210hp @ 5300 240lb.-ft @ 3500 Obviously Toyota can use less displacement and produce staggering amounts more power and torque. Time to get with 1980 Ford. |
|
2 edits | I would hardly call 8 ft-lb of torque and 58 hp "staggering". Displacement X rpm are nearly equal for peak hp and much better in the Ford's favor for torque.
EDIT: Actually, the shape of the horsepower and torque curves is a LOT more important than the PEAK horsepower and torque.
Peak hp at 6200 rpm is useless if you never drive at 6200 rpm. |
|
 TA63ST215WPremium,MVM
join:2000-11-23
there
kudos:2 | Not to pick nits with your numbers, but one engine is making nearly 50% more HP/Liter.
That is fairly significant in my book.
--
Striving for Parfection. |
|
1 edit | said by TA63:Not to pick nits with your numbers, but one engine is making nearly 50% more HP/Liter. That is fairly significant in my book. Yeah, but he's comparing apples and oranges. That 12 valve 4.0L Ford V-6 isn't a performance engine*, the 24 valve Toyota is. How about comparing the 3.5L 365 hp SHO V-6 to that Toyota 3.5L 268 hp V-6. Apples and oranges again, but this time Ford is on top.
*Everyone knows that the V-8s are Mustang's performance engines. Now-a-days, 2 valve/cylinder engines are for grocery getters.  |
|
 BonezXBasement DwellerPremium
join:2004-04-13
Canada
4 edits | said by Waterbug:said by TA63:Not to pick nits with your numbers, but one engine is making nearly 50% more HP/Liter. That is fairly significant in my book. Yeah, but he's comparing apples and oranges. That 12 valve 4.0L Ford V-6 isn't a performance engine*, the 24 valve Toyota is. How about comparing the 3.5L 365 hp SHO V-6 to that Toyota 3.5L 268 hp V-6. Apples and oranges again, but this time Ford is on top. *Everyone knows that the V-8s are Mustang's performance engines. Now-a-days, 2 valve/cylinder engines are for grocery getters. 24 valve = performance now ?
more valves = higher efficiency, that's without working in that 3 valve setups are physically BIGGER then 4 valves in the same size motor.
not only that but VVT-i will change the duration and lift at the high end so that the engine makes more power, think Honda and V tech, same concept except it's done on the cam sprocket instead of done with an extra cam lobe and a hydraulic lock.
also the sohc 24V v8 produced by ford is the engine thats IN the mustang, they don't hit 4valves till you get into the modular engines, which are in the mach1's and SVT cobra in the 4.6 size, 5.0's are 32 valve, and to be correct the 5.4 out of the lightning is a 16valve.
and if you want to start the valve fight, 1.6l producing 160hp with 20valves(100hp/l). 1.3l producing 250hp with NO valves(192hp/l). |
|
 MchartFirst There.
join:2004-01-21
Gurnee, IL | reply to Waterbug
The 3.5l v6 in the new SHO is making 365HP because it's turbo-charged. Not a very good comparison.
--
THIS IS SPENCER. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED - I HAVE JOE. RETURNING TO BASE. |
|
| said by Mchart:The 3.5l v6 in the new SHO is making 365HP because it's turbo-charged. Not a very good comparison. Comparing a 12 valve engine to a 24 valve engine wasn't a very good comparison either. That is why I said "comparing apples and oranges". |
|
MchartFirst There.
join:2004-01-21
Gurnee, IL | said by Waterbug:said by Mchart:The 3.5l v6 in the new SHO is making 365HP because it's turbo-charged. Not a very good comparison. Comparing a 12 valve engine to a 24 valve engine wasn't a very good comparison either. That is why I said "comparing apples and oranges". It's a very good comparison. Both are naturally aspirated, both are in the same market segment. This is why the current engine choices in the Mustang are a joke, and why the 2011 Mustangs won't be a joke anymore when it comes to the engine.
--
THIS IS SPENCER. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED - I HAVE JOE. RETURNING TO BASE. |
|
TA63ST215WPremium,MVM
join:2000-11-23
there
kudos:2 | reply to BonezX
said by BonezX:not only that but VVT-i will change the duration and lift at the high end so that the engine makes more power, think Honda and V tech, same concept except it's done on the cam sprocket instead of done with an extra cam lobe and a hydraulic lock. This is not correct. The VVT-i system changes the camshaft timing, not lift or duration.
Also, the 3.5 that we are talking about is not the performance version of that engine. The performance version of the 2GR (the 2GR-FSE) puts out 306 hp 378 lb/ft naturally aspirated.
--
Striving for Parfection. |
|
RoguePremium
join:2008-01-23
West Milford, NJ | reply to DarkSithPro
said by DarkSithPro:The infamous "Theres no replacement for displacement" debate. Looks like the V8 is in a run for it's money! I know of quite a few 6 cyl 3.2 liter BMWs that are putting down over 500 rwhp (585 hp or more at the crank) via the aid of superchargers or turbos. Reliably! A new Z06 only puts down 450 rwhp.. |
|
MchartFirst There.
join:2004-01-21
Gurnee, IL | said by Rogue:said by DarkSithPro:The infamous "Theres no replacement for displacement" debate. Looks like the V8 is in a run for it's money! I know of quite a few 6 cyl 3.2 liter BMWs that are putting down over 500 rwhp (585 hp or more at the crank) via the aid of superchargers or turbos. Reliably! A new Z06 only puts down 450 rwhp.. TVR's Speed-Six which is a 4.0 liter inline 6 is putting down 400hp/tq and it's naturally aspirated. If you were to turbo/supercharge it - It would be a monster. TVR also has the 8 liter Speed-Twelve which is basically two Speed-Sixes slapped together. It produces over 800hp/tq N/A. It's been reported TVR is going to supercharge the Speed Twelve bringing it to well over 1200HP.
--
THIS IS SPENCER. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED - I HAVE JOE. RETURNING TO BASE. |
|
RoguePremium
join:2008-01-23
West Milford, NJ
1 edit | said by Mchart:said by Rogue:said by DarkSithPro:The infamous "Theres no replacement for displacement" debate. Looks like the V8 is in a run for it's money! I know of quite a few 6 cyl 3.2 liter BMWs that are putting down over 500 rwhp (585 hp or more at the crank) via the aid of superchargers or turbos. Reliably! A new Z06 only puts down 450 rwhp.. TVR's Speed-Six which is a 4.0 liter inline 6 is putting down 400hp/tq and it's naturally aspirated. If you were to turbo/supercharge it - It would be a monster. TVR also has the 8 liter Speed-Twelve which is basically two Speed-Sixes slapped together. It produces over 800hp/tq N/A. It's been reported TVR is going to supercharge the Speed Twelve bringing it to well over 1200HP. While not intimate with the TVR, I really dig them and the company. Very popular in Europe and some of the old models look like they were the true inspiration for the Viper. Seeing them in person and the hand-crafted details makes all the difference of opinion. I do happen to know of a couple 600 rwhp 3.2l 6 cylinder BMW's, but when folks want more in a bimmer they're moving to the 8 cyl and getting 900+ rwhp with forced induction.
As you mentioned, TVR is getting 400 hp out of a NA 4.0l 6cyl engine, BMW getting 330 hp out of a NA 3.2l 6cyl engine - it proves they are both very efficient engines - more so than most American V-8 when compared against HP per Liter.. |
|
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | reply to DarkSithPro
i dont think the V8 engine will ever decline though, when looking to the sedan at least there is a reason even Toyota V8s are in a lexus, it isnt just power but smoothness of the bigger engine.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
| reply to Mchart
said by Mchart:The 3.5l v6 in the new SHO is making 365HP because it's turbo-charged. Not a very good comparison. Then compare the Toyota engine to the base 3.5 in the non-SHO Taurus... It compares very favorably. |
|
| reply to Kearnstd
said by Kearnstd:i dont think the V8 engine will ever decline though, when looking to the sedan at least there is a reason even Toyota V8s are in a lexus, it isnt just power but smoothness of the bigger engine. The 3.5 in my Taurus SHO is every bit as smooth as the 3.5 from my G35. And they are both as smooth as the V8 that was in my 1997 Mustang Cobra.
That being said, I think the V8 is far from dead. Ford just did a clean sheet design of the new 5.0 for the 2011 Mustang. It will most likely be used in the F-series as well. |
|
TA63ST215WPremium,MVM
join:2000-11-23
there
kudos:2 | Here's hoping they got the spark plugs right this time.
--
Striving for Parfection. |
|
| reply to DarkSithPro
Who? That was only the Ford truck engines and only under certain circumstances. Besides that's what warranties are for.
I feel fairly confident in Ford. My wife's 2003 Escape has been no more or less reliable than my previous 2004 Infiniti G35 and the G had 94k when I got rid of it and the Escape has just over 80k. |
|
