4cy Turbo's in Muscle Cars

[JHZR2]

If the engines can take time at temperature (i.e. high load), then no worries.

The compromise is always that higher power densities mean higher stresses by necessity since the system is smaller and yet is making as much waste heat, bearing loads, etc.

But as was mentioned before, lots of folks just want the look of the car and not the actual muscle.

On top of that, materials, lubes, flow and heat transfer designs and other things have gotten better to accommodate this.

I suspect that a 4 cyl turbo will be a good deal lighter and thus handle better than a v6 or v8, AND be easier to service for routine things, especially if the engine bay is still designed to fit a V8.

 

[aquariuscsm]

Imo the Japanese are the gods of 4 cyl's and the Americans are the gods of the V8's. No one can build a 4cyl like the Japanese and no one can build a V8 like the Americans.

 

[Bottom_Feeder]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
I suspect that a 4 cyl turbo will be a good deal lighter and thus handle better than a v6 or v8, AND be easier to service for routine things, especially if the engine bay is still designed to fit a V8.

One of the reasons why I went with the I4 in my Accord rather than a V6: room to work, less to fix!

 

[A_Harman]

People shouldn't fret too much over the 4 cylinder turbos going in the new Camaros and Mustangs. The 2.0L Ecotec should have ~270 HP, which is more than any 3rd-Gen Camaro had. The 2.3 Ecoboost has more power than the original 4-valve 4.6's that were put in Mustangs. It's a huge step up from the '82 Camaro which came standard with a 92-HP Iron Duke. Those were lame. 300-ish HP in any car is going to be respectable.

But the 4-cylinder sound is still a downer.

 

[A_Harman]

Originally Posted By: Win
Seems like there was a turbo Mustang in the first turbo fad era, back when I had my turbo T Bird.

SVO Mustang, or something like that.

Same 2.3 engine, more or less, as in the Turbo T Bird and Merkur XR-4, best as I recall.


I used to autocross and time trial against SVO Mustangs in the late '80's when I was driving my '85 Pontiac Sunbird Turbo. I think we split the prizes about 50/50. When the SVO first came out, though, people thought it was going to be competition for the Corvette. It fell way short of that. And when Ford came out with the 5.0 Mustang in 1987 with 225 HP, the SVO was done. The 5.0 'stang was faster and cost less.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: A_Harman
People shouldn't fret too much over the 4 cylinder turbos going in the new Camaros and Mustangs. The 2.0L Ecotec should have ~270 HP, which is more than any 3rd-Gen Camaro had. The 2.3 Ecoboost has more power than the original 4-valve 4.6's that were put in Mustangs. It's a huge step up from the '82 Camaro which came standard with a 92-HP Iron Duke. Those were lame. 300-ish HP in any car is going to be respectable.

But the 4-cylinder sound is still a downer.


You nailed it. Any ordinary 180 degree inline 4 will have a nearly identical sound, I've just heard way too much of it and don't fancy it in my "fun" car...

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: Bottom_Feeder
Originally Posted By: brages
Actually, the SVO Mustang had discs all around and full independent suspension, which was far ahead of the Mustang GT's in that era.

The SVO still had a solid rear axle but the suspension was tuned with special springs and Koni shocks.

Originally Posted By: brages
But I think there was a Turbo GT that was basically just like a Mustang GT with a turbo 4 instead of a V8.

You may be thinking of the Thunderbird from the same era. I think there were some later SN-95 Mustang Cobras that had IRS but no Fox Mustangs ever had it.


I believe the SVO followed the turbo T Bird by a year, and had substantially the same rear suspension - a live axle, with a second pair of shocks mounted horizontally.

My T bird was an '83 - took delivery the summer before my last year of school, while the SVO was an '84, IIRC, and I may not after all these years. I don't recall any Fords of that era with an IRS, and the SVO is the only turbo Mustang I recall from that era.

Seems like the SVO might have been intercooled or something that gave it more horsepower. The T Bird turbo 4 was 140 HP, although mine got at least two sets of new injectors while I had it that helped a little bit. It was actually a lightweight car, and while it would be a slow dog by today's standards, it was a good performer for back then.

Volvo made a turbo four in that same general time frame that was also a good looking, good performing, car.

edit: one of the things I really liked about this car - I ordered the optional front vent windows, and they were really useful. If turbo fours are going to make a comeback, why can't a useful feature like front vent windows be brought back?

 

[Bottom_Feeder]

Originally Posted By: Bottom_Feeder
Originally Posted By: brages
Actually, the SVO Mustang had discs all around and full independent suspension, which was far ahead of the Mustang GT's in that era.

The SVO still had a solid rear axle but the suspension was tuned with special springs and Koni shocks. I think there were some later SN-95 Mustang Cobras that had IRS but no Fox Mustangs ever had it. (moved)

Originally Posted By: brages
But I think there was a Turbo GT that was basically just like a Mustang GT with a turbo 4 instead of a V8.

You may be thinking of the Thunderbird from the same era. EDIT: Nope, looks like you may be right.

Fixed my earlier posts since I couldn't edit them now.

 

[eljefino]

Some people like RWD handling without a ton of "extra" power and commensurate insurance baggage. Someone might even buy one of these for their teenager and the kid would learn something about "old fashioned handling". They're trying to make a car for everyone.

I was tickled to get a rental RWD dodge charger even though it "only" had the 3.5 HO V6.

 

[hattaresguy]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
People shouldn't fret too much over the 4 cylinder turbos going in the new Camaros and Mustangs. The 2.0L Ecotec should have ~270 HP, which is more than any 3rd-Gen Camaro had. The 2.3 Ecoboost has more power than the original 4-valve 4.6's that were put in Mustangs. It's a huge step up from the '82 Camaro which came standard with a 92-HP Iron Duke. Those were lame. 300-ish HP in any car is going to be respectable.

But the 4-cylinder sound is still a downer.


You nailed it. Any ordinary 180 degree inline 4 will have a nearly identical sound, I've just heard way too much of it and don't fancy it in my "fun" car...


They sound like [censored].

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
I suspect that a 4 cyl turbo will be a good deal lighter and thus handle better than a v6 or v8,

Strangely, the new Mustang V6 weighs 3,526 lbs. 2.3 Ecoboost - 3,532 lbs. So, no difference really.

It's interesting though that it's the V6 that is positioned as the entry level model, with the 2.3 turbo being the mid-level offering. As such, many of the options/packages aren't even available with the V6 engine. I guess Ford is not expecting too many people to buy the V6 version. It's there to provide an entry level price point for marketing purposes. Although for me personally, if I had to choose between the two, I think I'd go for the NA engine. Having owned turbos in the past, I'm just not that big of a fan of them.

 

[Silverado12]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
I suspect that a 4 cyl turbo will be a good deal lighter and thus handle better than a v6 or v8,

Strangely, the new Mustang V6 weighs 3,526 lbs. 2.3 Ecoboost - 3,532 lbs. So, no difference really.

It's interesting though that it's the V6 that is positioned as the entry level model, with the 2.3 turbo being the mid-level offering. As such, many of the options/packages aren't even available with the V6 engine. I guess Ford is not expecting too many people to buy the V6 version. It's there to provide an entry level price point for marketing purposes. Although for me personally, if I had to choose between the two, I think I'd go for the NA engine. Having owned turbos in the past, I'm just not that big of a fan of them.





I'm with you. There's nothing wrong with that V-6 engine in a Mustang. I have a base Challenger and never even use all the power of the V-6. For people into the styling of the Mustang but don't care or need massive power, the six banger is plenty engine with 300hp.

 

[IndyIan]

Originally Posted By: Silverado12
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
I suspect that a 4 cyl turbo will be a good deal lighter and thus handle better than a v6 or v8,

Strangely, the new Mustang V6 weighs 3,526 lbs. 2.3 Ecoboost - 3,532 lbs. So, no difference really.

It's interesting though that it's the V6 that is positioned as the entry level model, with the 2.3 turbo being the mid-level offering. As such, many of the options/packages aren't even available with the V6 engine. I guess Ford is not expecting too many people to buy the V6 version. It's there to provide an entry level price point for marketing purposes. Although for me personally, if I had to choose between the two, I think I'd go for the NA engine. Having owned turbos in the past, I'm just not that big of a fan of them.





I'm with you. There's nothing wrong with that V-6 engine in a Mustang. I have a base Challenger and never even use all the power of the V-6. For people into the styling of the Mustang but don't care or need massive power, the six banger is plenty engine with 300hp.

I had a good listen to a new V6 Mustang at WO under a couple bridges and it sounded pretty good! It was an auto and the short ratios and quick shifts were kind of neat too. I think for a simple rwd manual track toy, the V6 would be pretty reasonable in the used market in a couple years.

 

[DoubleWasp]

You guys have to keep in mind that the base engines keep the model alive. People laugh at the 4 bangers, V6s, and the non turbos, but splitting the chassis costs so many ways is what allows for the higher end models to be as affordable as they are.

As long as there is a cake, there's always a place to put the icing. The fact there is a Mustang for the college girl who doesn't know a spark plug from a drain plug, as well as the balls to the wall track racer is a good thing. The model can survive, and the high packages never have to be justified on their own.

 

[aquariuscsm]

What sounds awful is when people put aftermarket exhaust on the V6 Mustangs. All the ones I've heard just sound like an angry bee and it's so loud that it hurts your ears. To me it just sounds like a car with a hole in the muffler.

The stock exhausts on the V6 Mustangs sound great as is imo.

 

[SilverSnake]

http://www.classicmusclecars.com/musclecars/general/musclecars-definition.php

 

[grampi]

The nice thing about smaller displacement engines with turbos is they're great for fuel economy when you keep it out of boost...the bad thing is they don't seem to hold up as long as larger displacement, naturally aspired engines...another thing they're good for is producing power down lower in the RPM range...these 300+ HP V6s they're putting in cars like the Mustang and Camaro are there basically so they can say it has over 300 HP...never mind that these engines don't make enough power to get out of their own way if they aren't revving at or near redline...they basically produce no power at low to mid RPMs, which makes these vehicles very annoying to drive...push on the accelerator AT ALL and the tranny (if equipped with an auto) has to downshift...these vehicles could use a turbo, then again, that would put them on par with the bigger V8 models...back in '87 I purchased a new Buick Regal T-Type, which had the 3.8 liter turbo (same as the Grand National)...no THAT was how you do a turbo...it made max torque at just 2800 RPM, and max HP at just 4400 RPM...it made power at all RPMs, no waiting for the RPMs to build before it would go...man, what I would give to still have that car today!

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: grampi
never mind that these engines don't make enough power to get out of their own way if they aren't revving at or near redline...they basically produce no power at low to mid RPMs,

While you are correct in general, I don't think the reality is as bleak as you make it out to be. Ford's 3.7 V6 cyclone engine produces 72% of max torque at 1,500 rpm, and 84% at 2,000 rpm. The torque curve is fairly decent, at least on paper.

Quote:
no waiting for the RPMs to build before it would go

Right. Instead, you are waiting for the turbo to spool up.

I get what you're saying, but turbo is not without its own issues, unless it's a bi-turbo setup with a smaller quick revving turbo helping at low RPMs and a larger turbo helping at high RPMs, alas, that adds even more cost and complexity.

 

[IndyIan]

Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
You guys have to keep in mind that the base engines keep the model alive. People laugh at the 4 bangers, V6s, and the non turbos, but splitting the chassis costs so many ways is what allows for the higher end models to be as affordable as they are.

As long as there is a cake, there's always a place to put the icing. The fact there is a Mustang for the college girl who doesn't know a spark plug from a drain plug, as well as the balls to the wall track racer is a good thing. The model can survive, and the high packages never have to be justified on their own.

I think these days though, the V6 and V8 cost about the same to make, and maybe the 4 cyl turbo is a bit cheaper? The price increase for the V8 is mostly calculated on what the market will bear for maximum profits.

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: grampi
never mind that these engines don't make enough power to get out of their own way if they aren't revving at or near redline...they basically produce no power at low to mid RPMs,

While you are correct in general, I don't think the reality is as bleak as you make it out to be. Ford's 3.7 V6 cyclone engine produces 72% of max torque at 1,500 rpm, and 84% at 2,000 rpm. The torque curve is fairly decent, at least on paper.

Quote:
no waiting for the RPMs to build before it would go

Right. Instead, you are waiting for the turbo to spool up.

I get what you're saying, but turbo is not without its own issues, unless it's a bi-turbo setup with a smaller quick revving turbo helping at low RPMs and a larger turbo helping at high RPMs, alas, that adds even more cost and complexity.




I'll take turbo lag over RPM lag any day...and if Ford's V6 has such a great torque curve, why does the tranny downshift at even the slight depression of the accelerator...if the engine was actually making any torque down low, the tranny wouldn't have to downshift so often....these V6s are ALL about looking good ON PAPER...