I may be in the market for one as long as it'll be cheaper than buying a newer car. She's gonna bite the dust one day, they all do. I am really attached to this car in an odd kinda way though and will keep her alive as long as possible. But who knows, I may find myself in a focus before the year is up anyway.
0
2.0 V8 power...
Started by Terry Haines, Jan 29 2004 05:15 AM
43 replies to this topic
#11
-
- Moderators
-
- 967 posts
Member
- Location:Newark, OH
- Interests:Cars, photography, finishing the BBA, moving on to the MBA, travelling (finally can do it since I lost a 180lb ring lol).
-
Vehicle owned:
2003 Ford Focus SVT
Posted 31 January 2004 - 01:04 PM
#12
-
- Members
-
- 88 posts
Member
- Location:Sault Sainte Marie, Canada / Coimbra, Portugal
-
Vehicle owned:
2000 Cougar V6
Posted 01 February 2004 - 06:27 AM
Well big torque engines may not be whats needed to win races but they're certainly great for entertainment. :burnout Jack Sears won the 1963 British Saloon Car Championship with a 427 Galaxie but lost out to Jim Clark next year who drove a tiny Lotus-Ford Cortina that made only about a 1/5 or 1/4 of the power of that big Galaxie.
Anyway, how accessible do you think these engines will be to a regular amateur enthusiast with a decent job who wants to use it in a track-day car? I guess I can assume they will cost much more than one of those new Ford 5.0L "Cammer" crate engines but are these engines going to accessable to anybody but the super rich-guy or semi/professional race teams?
Anyway, how accessible do you think these engines will be to a regular amateur enthusiast with a decent job who wants to use it in a track-day car? I guess I can assume they will cost much more than one of those new Ford 5.0L "Cammer" crate engines but are these engines going to accessable to anybody but the super rich-guy or semi/professional race teams?
#13
-
- Members
-
- 580 posts
Member
- Location:AZ
Posted 01 February 2004 - 05:48 PM
I highly doubt it...
if so it would've been done before I believe
but damn 13,000RPM revs :woot
if so it would've been done before I believe
but damn 13,000RPM revs :woot
#14
-
- Moderators
-
- 11,036 posts
Senior Member
Posted 01 February 2004 - 09:23 PM
....smaller cylinders and more of them ALWAYS make more HP than a few 'BIG BORES'...think about it....the gas burns at the same speed ...big or small bore...it takes LONGER for a 'BIG BORE' engine to burn the gas in the cylinder Vs a small cylinder....flame has further to travel in a BIG Vs small bore from the spark plug to the cylinder wall....the shorter the distance the quicker it burns....basic stuff to me! :wink...as an 'edit'...most of these engines run with a very high theoretical CR...BUT with long duration cams this is lower for the effective CR....same with any 'hot cam'...it lowers the CR of the engine.... :wink
#15 Guest_Stock_tour04_*
-
- Guests
Posted 02 February 2004 - 10:26 PM
i still prefer a big v8/v10 for muscle cars, v/12 for pastarockets and the nice, peppy 2.0L in my contour. i agree with what your saying, after all it makes sense, i just stated a fact, the cyliners are gonna be the size of golf ballz. ;)
#16
-
- Moderators
-
- 11,036 posts
Senior Member
Posted 02 February 2004 - 10:28 PM
.....the F1 Honda in the 70's had cylinders the size of golf balls...it ran like a raped ape and scared the s**t out of other builders!!!!
#17 Guest_Stock_tour04_*
-
- Guests
Posted 02 February 2004 - 11:17 PM
yeah i dot doubt it, whats this new 2.0 V8 gonna sound like? is it gonna have a mustang sound? or a honda S2000 sound? (either way is fine ith me :woot )
#18
-
- Moderators
-
- 967 posts
Member
- Location:Newark, OH
- Interests:Cars, photography, finishing the BBA, moving on to the MBA, travelling (finally can do it since I lost a 180lb ring lol).
-
Vehicle owned:
2003 Ford Focus SVT
Posted 03 February 2004 - 01:26 AM
A nice lotus elise sound would be fine too. I love those things.
#20
-
- Moderators
-
- 967 posts
Member
- Location:Newark, OH
- Interests:Cars, photography, finishing the BBA, moving on to the MBA, travelling (finally can do it since I lost a 180lb ring lol).
-
Vehicle owned:
2003 Ford Focus SVT
Posted 09 February 2004 - 12:27 PM
LOL! Maybe if one of us has a HUGE trust fund, and wants to contribute for the rest of us. I want one real bad, but I work as a manager at Burger King til I graduate this coming winter. That equals about the cost of the motor as my anual salary.
#21 Guest_Stock_tour04_*
-
- Guests
Posted 09 February 2004 - 11:59 PM
i can see the civic owners (aka ricers, well some of them at least) flocking to it when this thing hits the market. if it ever does...will it be applicable in hondas?
#22
-
- Members
-
- 17 posts
Junior Member
Posted 12 February 2004 - 07:16 AM
Terry Haines, on Jan 30 2004, 07:20 AM, said:
...Hp per litre & power to weight ratio wins races![/b]
-Tim
#23
-
- Members
-
- 14 posts
Junior Member
Posted 12 February 2004 - 10:35 AM
Terry Haines, on Jan 30 2004, 07:20 AM, said:
..,'torque wins races'...nope...if that were the case NASCAR engines would be in F1.....HP per litre & power to weight ratio wins races! [/b]
sadly that is what matters to most of us americans!
id rather have a high rpm screamer and take it on a nice road course :)
#24 Guest_holycowpaul_*
-
- Guests
Posted 14 February 2004 - 11:16 AM
High revving HP engines might win F1 races and put out tons of high output power but they aren't as fuel efficient as torque motors. Power efficient, yes, but not fuel as efficient. There is usually a trade off and differently engineered or tuned engines serve different purposes---Go read the RX-8 BB's--High output, poor fuel economy. Of course, who cares about fuel efficiency when racing, for the most part.
Long duration cams effect dynamic compression 'though static compression is fixed. Longer duration cams need more compression.
Although bigger bore engines might make comparably less power than multi-cylinder small bore engines (because of the flame travel issue) a bigger bored to stroke ratio typically makes for a higher power output motor by pushing the revs up the scale. Also--drawback--the more cylinders, the more internal friction. The old Jag motors needed a lot of battery power to turn the car over, if I'm not mistaken. Everything is a trade-off in everything.
Long duration cams effect dynamic compression 'though static compression is fixed. Longer duration cams need more compression.
Although bigger bore engines might make comparably less power than multi-cylinder small bore engines (because of the flame travel issue) a bigger bored to stroke ratio typically makes for a higher power output motor by pushing the revs up the scale. Also--drawback--the more cylinders, the more internal friction. The old Jag motors needed a lot of battery power to turn the car over, if I'm not mistaken. Everything is a trade-off in everything.
#25
-
- Moderators
-
- 11,036 posts
Senior Member
Posted 14 February 2004 - 07:24 PM
....i'm sorry but the 2 valve set up came to the end of its life 20-30 years ago.I understand your support for the 'ol gal but you need to move on to the new ideas and output etc of multi valves.
#26 Guest_holycowpaul_*
-
- Guests
Posted 16 February 2004 - 10:32 AM
That's why the new hemi has two valves.
#27 Guest_Stock_tour04_*
-
- Guests
Posted 16 February 2004 - 10:40 AM
there are exceptions to every rule... and i wouldnt reccomend calling out Terry Haines on automotive knowledge either... :wink
EDIT: and no it doesnt...the HEMI Magnum is a 32 Valve V8, not a 16 valve
EDIT#2: it also has 2 plugs per cyinder...
http://www.motortren.../112_021105_hp/
EDIT: and no it doesnt...the HEMI Magnum is a 32 Valve V8, not a 16 valve
EDIT#2: it also has 2 plugs per cyinder...
http://www.motortren.../112_021105_hp/
#28 Guest_holycowpaul_*
-
- Guests
Posted 17 February 2004 - 11:55 AM
"The engine's unique two-valve hemispherical combustion chamber within an aluminum head provides impressive air flow, torque and power (hallmarks of the original), and gives the engine its throaty rumble. Fifty-six pounds lighter than the 5.9-liter V-8, the 5.7-liter Hemi produces 41% more power and 12% more peak torque."
It's a 2 valve design. Sorry
http://www.allpar.co...mopar-hemi.html
It's a 2 valve design. Sorry
http://www.allpar.co...mopar-hemi.html
#30
-
- Moderators
-
- 11,036 posts
Senior Member
Posted 17 February 2004 - 07:22 PM
....a 2 valve hemi is not new,more of a revised antique...Jag was hemi in the '40's....just an old idea brought back to help bad sales.....
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
