which do you think is faster?

JRS · 24 Jun 2007 at 20:38

Cyber-Mav said:
yikes a 8.4ltr shocking to say the least.

No, it isn't. At the end of the day, you can throw all manner of trickery at a motor but if you need to increase outright power, there ain't no replacement for displacement.

Cyber-Mav said:
also do these american cars use cam belts or are they all chain driven? im gonna gess chain since they got to do a lot of mileages and people don;t want to do belt changes often?

Depends entirely on the engine design. If it's a pushrod motor, the cam is in the block anyway. OHC, probably belts. But then, the American attitude to servicing is rather different. Oil changes are something done fairly frequently at Jiffy Lube or NAPA or Canadian Tire etc, a cambelt change wouldn't cost the small fortune it does over here, and you only go back to a main dealer for serious remedial work.

Cyber-Mav · 24 Jun 2007 at 20:43

[TW]Fox said:
Why compare on engine size and not power output?

?? cuz american bhp doesn;t seem to mean much. a 210bhp mustang 4.0 v6 is rougly equivalent to a 105bhp escort. if you want to compare bhp for bhp then the impretza we had which was a 215bhp model obliterated the mustang not only in speed but it still got 30mpg in economy where the mustang struggled to give 20mpg.

not sure why you asked to compare on engine power and not on size? at the end of the day a like for like comparrison should be a 4.0 vs a 4.0 both normally aspirated so both in comparriosn should be NA.

i can;t think of a uk car which uses a 4.0 engine, closest i could think of was a 3.5ltr 350z which is less on engine capacity yet is faster and more economic.

DRZ · 24 Jun 2007 at 20:44

[TW]Fox said:
Why compare on engine size and not power output?

Why compare on power output? Surely BHP/Tonne would be a better comparison here?

[TW]Fox · 24 Jun 2007 at 20:44

Cyber-Mav said:
?? cuz american bhp doesn;t seem to mean much. a 210bhp mustang 4.0 v6 is rougly equivalent to a 105bhp escort

What, whereas comparing it to a Nissan 350Z 'means much?'.

Cyber-Mav · 24 Jun 2007 at 20:48

[TW]Fox said:
What, whereas comparing it to a Nissan 350Z 'means much?'.

actually i think some ferraries use a 4.0l engine. but thats a different league altogether, lets not bring the italians into this one since they will win easily.

g0th2000 · 24 Jun 2007 at 20:48

DRZ said:
Why compare on power output? Surely BHP/Tonne would be a better comparison here?

I think at the cheap end of the market it's probably more BHP/$, if the 4.0LV6 is the cheapest way to get 200bhp, that's what goes in. Especially when you factor in the US desire for big engines and relative lack of concern for MPG then the decision becomes even easier.

Of course the same approach would be a marketting disaster in the UK purely due to the MPG.

Cyber-Mav · 24 Jun 2007 at 20:50

last week bro came back from florida and said the petrol prices were cheapo 80cent per litre ish. so thats around 45p a litre? man thats good.

JRS · 24 Jun 2007 at 20:51

Cyber-Mav said:
?? cuz american bhp doesn;t seem to mean much.

I'm still trying to decide if some of what you're posting is just a wind-up....and comments like that aren't helping me decide.

Cyber-Mav · 24 Jun 2007 at 20:53

JRS said:
I'm still trying to decide if some of what you're posting is just a wind-up....and comments like that aren't helping me decide.

not a wind up mate, im just saying, why does mustang 210bhp feel like escort 105bhp? are american engines blaggin the power figures like honda were blagging economy figures at one time?

DRZ · 24 Jun 2007 at 20:54

g0th2000 said:
I think at the cheap end of the market it's probably more BHP/$, if the 4.0LV6 is the cheapest way to get 200bhp, that's what goes in. Especially when you factor in the US desire for big engines and relative lack of concern for MPG then the decision becomes even easier.

Of course the same approach would be a marketting disaster in the UK purely due to the MPG.

I wasnt talking about in terms of marketing, I meant in the context of this ridiculous thread!

He plucked a 350Z from thin air because it had a 3.5l V6.

The mustang Cyber-Mavcompared the escort to was never designed to be fast or anything like that. They built it to fit the market it was supposed to be sold in and it probably does that well. Its not a race car!

g0th2000 · 24 Jun 2007 at 20:57

DRZ said:
I wasnt talking about in terms of marketing, I meant in the context of this ridiculous thread!

He plucked a 350Z from thin air because it had a 3.5l V6.

The mustang Cyber-Mavcompared the escort to was never designed to be fast or anything like that. They built it to fit the market it was supposed to be sold in and it probably does that well. Its not a race car!

Sorry, I was trying to add to your point not replace it, I agree completely

Dfhaii · 24 Jun 2007 at 20:58

It's all to do with the exchange rate, at the moment American cars feel slow because there's roughly 2 American BHP to 1 British.

JRS · 24 Jun 2007 at 20:59

Cyber-Mav said:
not a wind up mate, im just saying, why does mustang 210bhp feel like escort 105bhp? are american engines blaggin the power figures like honda were blagging economy figures at one time?

No, that figure is an SAE certified one. In fact, American manufacturers used to under-rate their engines by quite a bit in order to 'fool'* the insurance companies into offering lower rates to customers.

And the Mustang feels slow because it is slow. It's a big(ish), heavy(ish) car designed to be a boulevard cruiser. It is not, never has been and never will be a sports car.

* - I say 'fool'. Everyone knew what was going on, so it wasn't much of a con.

Cyber-Mav · 24 Jun 2007 at 21:00

dunno what to say then guys, its probably just me that thinks it would be better to have used the escort engine in the mustang to give it the same sort of performance (perhaps use the 115bhp engine to make up for added weight) and get far better economy.

[TW]Fox · 24 Jun 2007 at 21:01

Cyber-Mav said:
dunno what to say then guys, its probably just me that thinks it would be better to have used the escort engine in the mustang to give it the same sort of performance (perhaps use the 115bhp engine to make up for added weight) and get far better economy.

I'm now with JRS. Are you for real? Like, seriously?

g0th2000 · 24 Jun 2007 at 21:02

Erm, there's this factor called weight, it's quite important...

DRZ · 24 Jun 2007 at 21:02

Cyber-Mav said:
dunno what to say then guys, its probably just me that thinks it would be better to have used the escort engine in the mustang to give it the same sort of performance (perhaps use the 115bhp engine to make up for added weight) and get far better economy.

Why?

The 4.0 V6 unit is perfect for its target market. Even the 115ps unit wouldn't be entertained by the Americans.

pitchfork · 24 Jun 2007 at 21:04

i'd get the mustang any day, regardless of speed or efficiency, it's HOT

I'd have one now if I had £60k to spend on a nice reproduction

But yeah, mustang will be heavier and therefore slower, its a muscle car, not a sports car

Cyber-Mav · 24 Jun 2007 at 21:04

JRS said:
And the Mustang feels slow because it is slow. It's a big(ish), heavy(ish) car designed to be a boulevard cruiser. It is not, never has been and never will be a sports car.

* - I say 'fool'. Everyone knew what was going on, so it wasn't much of a con.

its not that heavy as you make it out to be, but i guess its just me thats thinking of fuel economy at the same time as power.

if it was me i would choose to have a mustang with a 2.0 130ps mondeo engine in it. bu i see where you guys are comming from.
a mustang with mondeo engine may be just as fast as the 4.0 v6 but americans would just look and say , bah its a 2.0 don;t want that.
just the way i looked at the 4.0 and though whoa thats gonna be quick.

JRS · 24 Jun 2007 at 21:05

Cyber-Mav said:
dunno what to say then guys, its probably just me that thinks it would be better to have used the escort engine in the mustang to give it the same sort of performance (perhaps use the 115bhp engine to make up for added weight) and get far better economy.

Okay. So this is a wind-up then.

A couple of points:

1) The Mustang drop-top V6 has a curb weight of around 3500lbs. This is around 1587kg. Take off some for the engine, and you're still left with a rather heavy car to motivate.
2) Take the Escort engine. Note that it is a small displacement 4 pot with ~115hp. Note that it doesn't exactly have massive reserves of torque. Note that 115hp is not really going to be enough to move a 1500kg car with any kind of vigour.

***edit***

Cyber-Mav said:
its not that heavy as you make it out to be, but i guess its just me thats thinking of fuel economy at the same time as power.

It's 1500kg. It's going to be slightly heavier than a sodding Escort!

[TW]Fox said:
I'm now with JRS. Are you for real? Like, seriously?

You always get there in the end Fox