5 Cylinder Engines

Status
Not open for further replies.
quote:
Originally posted by Winston:

As far as the older Volvo, there was something different about that older 960. I think it had no low end torque. Plus, doesn't it have variable air intake?
Click to expand...
None of the 960s had variable intake. As far as the low end torque difference between the 180hp and 200hp cams in the 960s 6 cylinder, it has been blown way out of proportion. Volvo created this graph comparing the 200hp and 180hp 960 engines. 92-94 200hp is on the left, 180hp 95-98 is on the right.
Source:
http://www.volvoclub.org.uk/tech/V90Specifications1997.pdf
-

As you can see the difference is not that great. Volvo claimed the 180hp cams were geared to american driving habits. I think it had more to do with stricter emissions regulations that were introduced with OBD2. They continued selling 960s with 200hp in Europe to the end of production in 98.
95+ 960s use a shorter final drive ratio. 3.73 vs the early 960 3.31.
I would take the 20 extra hp any day. I know of at least 2 95+ 960 owners that have swapped early cams in to their car for the 20hp gain. Nobody is swapping the other way around. If you really want more low end torque, the 960 came from the factory with adjustable cam gears. I advanced my exhaust cam about 6 degrees for more low end torque. The car takes off like a V8. Top end is about the same.
 
Hey guys it is not that complicated. HP is a function of RPM. Torque is a function of displacement. Both are modified by an increase in manifold pressure. Most NA 2.5 liter engines will make close to the same torque. HP can always be added by a high flow head with big cams and resulting in a higher RPM peak HP but at a sacrifice of low end torque. The beauty of vtec (the best vvt) is you don't lose the low end torque or fuel efficiency. My integra pulls hard all the way to 8500 RPM yet puts around town like a hyundai. Dan
 
As far as that ford goes, it is impressive to get 80hp/liter even with variable air intake, no?

As far as the Volvo 960. I agree that americans in general are afraid to rev their engines past 4000rpm, so I believe that is why they changed the cam. However, those curves look funny. The older engine has more torque at 4200rpm but less hp?!?!? The curves have funny bumps in the torque curves that are not reflected in the hp curve. Obviously, one can create a hp curve from a torque curve. Something odd.

Boy are we off topic or what.
 
Yes it does and more. I have added a big cam kit, throttle body, headers, type R intake manifold and a 2 1/2" exhaust. I have had the ECU reprogrammed to make it all work together. The engine has 155k on it with out ever removing the head. I have not dynoed it but a good guess would be 195hp out of 1.7 liters. Some of the honda/acura engines have vtec on both intake and exhaust cams and some don't. If you are into performance the dual vtec system is the one to get. Not just dohc but dual vtec. Dan
 
quote:
Originally posted by Winston:


Many cars get less hp per cylinder. Anyone have an example of a stock engine that gets more than 60hp per liter?
Click to expand...
Lots of engines, I would think.

The AJ6 4.0 liter engine in my oldest XJ6 makes 240 hp, it's just a simple DOHC 4 valve/cylinder design.

The 5.7 litre pushrod LS1 in my Goat makes 350 HP; the 6.0 pushrod in the '05 Goat makes 400 HP ....
 
quote:
The AJ6 4.0 liter engine in my oldest XJ6 makes 240 hp, it's just a simple DOHC 4 valve/cylinder design.

The 5.7 litre pushrod LS1 in my Goat makes 350 HP; the 6.0 pushrod in the '05 Goat makes 400 HP ....
Click to expand...
AJ6 4L x 60hp = 240hp
LS1 5.7L x 61hp = 350hp
'05 Goat 6L x 66hp = 400hp

So, it looks like the older engines follow the 60hp rule and the newer one follows the 66hp rule.
 
The Volvo 5 cylinder is a very good engine.
The only problems that have come up that I know about are from lack of maintenance. You stay up with your OCI (7500 mile), coolant flushes, and timing belts it should easily last over 200K miles. The only odd ball problem I know about is the electronic throttle module. The unit is total junk and is well known for crapping out when it is most inappropriate.
 
One way they have been able to turn the power up on newer motors is to use more cam timing. In the past bigger cams meant more overlap which meant more smog. Now with more efficient catalytic convertors to "catch" the unburnt fuel from overlap, and more precise timing of the injected fuel, we can go back to the hot rodders fomula of longer durations for more power. The downside of longer cams is loss of lowend power, enter VVT. VVT shortens the duration at lower rpms to regain back some of the lost power from the bigger cam.
 
quote:
Originally posted by ediamiam:
The Acura Vigor from 92 to 94 came with a 5 cyl inline, about 175 hp. In retrospect regret not getting one of those back then, having driven one with a stick shift. It was kind of a blast driving it thru hilly terrain.
Click to expand...
My dad had a 93, just died about 2 years ago. It had like 250K miles on it, motor was still good but the tranny and the rest of the car started to crumble around it. (He doesn't take good care of his cars though he gets a lot of miles out of them)

Had good pull for a little 2.5L engine in a mid-size car. Interesting, but pleasant, exhaust note.

Acura's marketing materials at the time said that their inline-5 made more low-end torque than a V6, and more hp than a 4-cylinder. I have no idea what V6 they were benchmarking for that claim.
 
Those Honda's are really engineering marvels, I just sold my 99 civic SI with the b16a.
160hp/1.6L = 100hp/L

My new dodge is just a hair off at
239hp/2.4L = 99.58hp/L

I should note that the Honda makes that Naturally Aspirated, while the Dodge has Forced Induction
 
Because the Dodge is a boosted engine it will have the torque of a 3.5 liter NA engine @ 250 ft/lbs. The Civic SI only has 111 ft/lbs. Me personally I don't like a turbo gas engines although a diesel turbo is wonderful. The problem is to suppress detonation you must feed it a rich fuel mixture when under boost killing fuel economy. The EPA mileage numbers don't tell you this because the testing is not done under boost. In other words if you have your foot in it a lot the turbo 2.4L mpg will be worse than 3.5L NA motor with the same output. Dan

[ May 28, 2005, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: DR Racing ]
 
Kind of pointless to compare boosted engines when there max boost is not the same. The boosted motor that impresses me is the experimental saab with variable CR. Dan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

O
GM 3.7 engine reliability
Replies
11
Views
16K
Delta
T
2004 Isuzu Rodeo - Lost key who services?
Replies
12
Views
876
michaelluscher
Z
Ever had a engine or Transmission failure?
4 5 6
Replies
117
Views
3K
cdlamb
OM605
Is a high mileage 07 Volvo S60 a good buy?
Replies
14
Views
1K
meep
P
What's with Advance Auto clearance products ringing up for 5 cents
Replies
14
Views
2K
nv1z
Back
Top