Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| reply to Mospaw
Re: Displacement vs Forced Induction/ v8/12 vs 4 cyl said by Mospaw:Very impressive. But there's one area where the four-bangers will never beat the engines with more holes: smoothness. But the 4 cylinder motors will get better gas mileage. That's important as the price of gas rises. |
|
 PopePremium
join:2001-08-05
Napa, CA
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| said by JukeBoxHero:said by Mospaw:Very impressive. But there's one area where the four-bangers will never beat the engines with more holes: smoothness. But the 4 cylinder motors will get better gas mileage. That's important as the price of gas rises. Cylinder deactivation narrows this gap a bit.
Also, I have issues with the 300 and 400+ hp 4 bangers. Most of these are forced induction, and extensively modified and tuned. These engines are hand grenades, and aren't going to last 100k miles or more. (Stock 4 bangers with 300+ hp are an exception, they've been through rigorous testing)
Pope |
|
 MospawWhat, too soon?Hawaiian Jellyfish
join:2001-01-08
Mile High
kudos:1
All Things Macintosh
Automotive
Rants, Raves, and ..
| reply to JukeBoxHero
said by JukeBoxHero:But the 4 cylinder motors will get better gas mileage. That's important as the price of gas rises. Of course they will. They're smaller displacement for the most part. But better mileage isn't smoother, is it? That was my only point. 
Personally, I don't mind the mileage hit that my larger, smoother engine gives me. And even at $5 a gallon or more, it's worth it to me to have a far less stressed (or at least less-revved  ) engine when cruising at 75 MPH.
And note that I'm not saying one is better than the other. I simply have a preference for larger engines with at least 8 cylinders than smaller forced induction engines with 4 cylinders. |
|
| reply to JukeBoxHero
said by JukeBoxHero:But the 4 cylinder motors will get better gas mileage. That's important as the price of gas rises. Actually, they don't. The Honda s2000 is a two seater that gets 18MPG city and requires premium gas. Given the size of the car and the fact that it needs higher octane, I'd consider it a gas guzzler. My bet is that all those high-output engines are about the same.
Also, can someone explain:
The 237HP is at 7800 RPM and it redlines at 8000 RPM. Is it just me or is that pushing the motor just a bit?
--
"I've learned that depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
| said by burgermeister:said by JukeBoxHero:But the 4 cylinder motors will get better gas mileage. That's important as the price of gas rises. Actually, they don't. The Honda s2000 is a two seater that gets 18MPG city and requires premium gas. Given the size of the car and the fact that it needs higher octane, I'd consider it a gas guzzler. My bet is that all those high-output engines are about the same. They don't? Because you can find one or two 4 cyl engines you want to bet they're all about the same. I'll take that bet and win! 
There are a few high performance 4 bangers that get bad mileage but check out Road and Track for more comparisons.
»www.roadandtrack.com/assets/down···mary.pdf
Then there's the government site, »www.fueleconomy.gov/FEG/FEG2010.pdf to prove you wrong too. |
|
|
|
| reply to burgermeister
said by burgermeister:said by JukeBoxHero:But the 4 cylinder motors will get better gas mileage. That's important as the price of gas rises. Actually, they don't. The Honda s2000 is a two seater that gets 18MPG city and requires premium gas. Given the size of the car and the fact that it needs higher octane, I'd consider it a gas guzzler. My bet is that all those high-output engines are about the same. Also, can someone explain: The 237HP is at 7800 RPM and it redlines at 8000 RPM. Is it just me or is that pushing the motor just a bit? I-Vtec usually kicks in after 5,800 RPM. You have to keep the RPM's high on Honda engines to keep the power band from dropping. That's normal though. I have a k20 motor and they love to rev high. |
|
 BonezXBasement DwellerPremium
join:2004-04-13
Canada
1 edit | reply to Pope
said by Pope:said by JukeBoxHero:said by Mospaw:Very impressive. But there's one area where the four-bangers will never beat the engines with more holes: smoothness. But the 4 cylinder motors will get better gas mileage. That's important as the price of gas rises. Cylinder deactivation narrows this gap a bit. Also, I have issues with the 300 and 400+ hp 4 bangers. Most of these are forced induction, and extensively modified and tuned. These engines are hand grenades, and aren't going to last 100k miles or more. (Stock 4 bangers with 300+ hp are an exception, they've been through rigorous testing) Pope evo's and sti's are used as daily drivers all around the world, each of which puts out in excess of 250hp to the wheels, and can easily handle up to 450hp on stock internals and pump gas. the engines used in these cars come from designs used in the WRC where a restrictor plate is used on the intake of the engine limiting them to 300hp, but they are pretty much allowed limitless torque. and i have yet to hear about someone splitting their crank in half while doing 100mph, but i've seen it done from a standstill.(actually saw a Subaru sheer off all 4 drive axles, but that thing had too much power)
as for the smoothness, nothing beats a rotary, and it's still smaller then a 4cyl. |
|
2 edits | Unfortunately Wankel engines have almost no torque, and they burn engine oil way too fast. Also, looks like Mazda couldn't make up their mind when they made the RX-8. Is it a Coupe, or a Sedan? And that car is one of the ugliest cars I've seen... |
|
 GbcueAlmost P.E.Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:8
·AT&T U-Verse
| What about the Mustang 4.0L V6 vs. a Toyota 3.5L V6?
My STOCK Toyota RAV4 (3.5L V6) is faster than a 4.0L V6 Mustang off the line.
--
My BLOG!
Black Friday Ads |
|
 MusclesPremium
join:2003-08-09
The Gym
kudos:3 | 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. |
|
| 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. C'mon, anyone who buys a 6 cylinder Mustang is a dumb ass. A Mustang GT is where it's at to be competitive. |
|
MusclesPremium
join:2003-08-09
The Gym
kudos:3 | Then why produce it?
The V8 is no better. 4.7L and 8 Cylinders to produce what Nissan, BMW and many other companies can do with under 4.0L and 6 cylinders? Poor excuse for a performance vehicle. |
|
 MattBCOut of the gym injured for 12 months nowPremium
join:2006-02-01
Victoria, BC
kudos:1 | reply to Gbcue
said by Gbcue:What about the Mustang 4.0L V6 vs. a Toyota 3.5L V6? My STOCK Toyota RAV4 (3.5L V6) is faster than a 4.0L V6 Mustang off the line. And my 2.5L '09 Sentra SE-R Spec V could more than keep up and beat it as well, with 2 less cylinders.
Matt
--
I like to rant about funny and serious things.
ISSA Certified Personal Trainer. |
|
MattBCOut of the gym injured for 12 months nowPremium
join:2006-02-01
Victoria, BC
kudos:1 | reply to Muscles
said by Muscles:Then why produce it? The V8 is no better. 4.7L and 8 Cylinders to produce what Nissan, BMW and many other companies can do with under 4.0L and 6 cylinders? Poor excuse for a performance vehicle. But...but...but...
It sounds fast.
Matt
--
I like to rant about funny and serious things.
ISSA Certified Personal Trainer. |
|
 C0deZer0Oc'D To Rhythm And PolicePremium
join:2001-10-03
Davenport, FL | reply to Muscles
said by Muscles:Then why produce it? It's still better looking than a lot of alternatives for about the same price?
Last I read about this year's model, the V6 had twin turbos on it, and very conservatively set. If that is true, any enterprising modder could likely unlock and dial up those turbo's to gain some free performance.
It's also about $10k starting MSRP less than the GT model, and will no doubt have a much more affordable insurance premium (since they pretty much hate anything that even has halfway racing credentials).
Just throwing a few ideas out there.
--
Front Line Force Fortress Forever |
|
PopePremium
join:2001-08-05
Napa, CA Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
| 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. Since you're still not talking apples to apples because a Mustang and a Camry isn't in the same classification of vehicles...
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 Fusion
2,967 cc 3.0 liters V 6 front engine with 89.0 mm bore, 79.5 mm stroke, 10.3 compression ratio, double overhead cam, variable valve timing/camshaft and four valves per cylinder Duratec 30 - 240 hp @ 6550 rpm / 223 lb.-ft @ 4300 rpm
Quick math
Camry: 3.5 / 268 = 76.57hp p/liter - 3.5 / 248 = 70.86 lb.-ft p/liter
Fusion: 3.0 / 240 = 80hp p/liter - 3.0 / 223 = 74.3 lb.-ft p/liter
You also pay over $4000 for the Camry name over the Fusion, and if I remember correctly the Fusion was named Car of the Year in 09..
Please stop using the Mustang as a reference for all Ford vehicles. The car is not well engineered by most people's standards because it makes its money by its name and body shape.
Pope |
|
 MchartFirst There.
join:2004-01-21
Gurnee, IL | Yawn. I covered their shinanigans in the other thread.
I hate the Mustang as well. However, to compare the Camry to a Mustang is just outright stupid. The bottom line is that both are two completely different types of cars for a completely different type of market, so comparing the engines may as well be worthless.
--
THIS IS SPENCER. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED - I HAVE JOE. RETURNING TO BASE. |
|
MchartFirst There.
join:2004-01-21
Gurnee, IL | reply to Muscles
said by Muscles:Then why produce it? The V8 is no better. 4.7L and 8 Cylinders to produce what Nissan, BMW and many other companies can do with under 4.0L and 6 cylinders? Poor excuse for a performance vehicle. Because people buy it en masse and it makes money.
--
THIS IS SPENCER. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED - I HAVE JOE. RETURNING TO BASE. |
|
1 edit | reply to Gbcue
said by Gbcue:What about the Mustang 4.0L V6 vs. a Toyota 3.5L V6? My STOCK Toyota RAV4 (3.5L V6) is faster than a 4.0L V6 Mustang off the line. Ah the beating of the dead horse game. First off Toyota doesn't have a 2 seat sports car, their last attempt at this with the "latest" Celica was such an embarrassment they gave up performance cars altogether it seems.
Secondly the 4 L Mustang is designed to be cheap for high school students etc and not have a lot of performance for beginning drivers.
If you really want to compare apples to apples, the 3.5L Fusion has 3 less hp than the Camry engine at lower RPM and 1 more Ft Lb of torque at a lower RPM. This adds up to better performance off the line. Even better is the fact that the Fusion beats the Camry on the track, even with a longer wheelbase according to most reviews.
Finally it's a known fact that a RAV-4 gets more laughs then dates than a Mustang, what do you expect for such a smooshed thing?
--
CCNA, Comtrain Certified Tower Climber |
|
| 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. Uh, unlike Toyota that can't produce a sports car that sells on name alone(there are many years of crap mustangs but it still sells strong, a few years of crap Celicas meant toyota ran away yelping) Ford's "other" V6 is basically the same specs as the Camry engine but in a much more capable platform.
Ford is in the 2000s, unlike the Camry whose latest "styling" change has pissed off people with 3 generations of the car now looking for alternatives for a base platform that has changed little in 10 years.
--
CCNA, Comtrain Certified Tower Climber |
|
