Proof Chevy V8's beat blown 4-cylinders - Focus RS

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
Maybe this just means pushrod V-8's make sense.



Of COURSE pushrod engines "make sense" for passenger cars. The whole idea that they're in any way inferior is just a fabrication of the automotive press who only think in terms of "wow, that's different it must be better," and is a holdover from the 80s. It sure didn't originate with engineers in charge of building on-highway cars.

Pushrods and overhead cams open and close the valves, that's all. Neither one has a distinct advantage below about 7000 RPM, and guess what? Most passenger car engines never go north of 7000 RPM anyway, especially the larger ones. Above that, the lower inertia of an overhead-cam system has an advantage, as does being able to put 4 smaller valves in a cylinder instead of 2 large ones. But if you can stay below 7000 RPM, pushrods win hands-down in terms of compactness of the overall engine, ESPECIALLY V8 and v6 engines. Just compare a Ford Modular to a GM LSx, or a Chrysler Hemi to a Chrysler 4.7 SOHC to see the difference.



I like pushrod engines. But because over head cam is the "new" technology, it get used.

No timing belt. No tensioners. Instead, you get a small cam chain that lasts a long time. And you don't have to start tearing apart stuff on the bottom of the engine to get the head off should that need to happen.

Ironically, I spin my pushrod engine much quicker than the DOHC engine I have
 
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
But if you can stay below 7000 RPM, pushrods win hands-down in terms of compactness of the overall engine, ESPECIALLY V8 and v6 engines. Just compare a Ford Modular to a GM LSx, or a Chrysler Hemi to a Chrysler 4.7 SOHC to see the difference.


Comparing the current BMW 4.4L TwinPower Turbo V-8 engine (445 hp) to the current Camaro SS's 455 hp engine, the Chevy doesn't have the huge heads, long timing chains, and volume/complexity needed for the twin turbos.

The world seems to be going for boosted, small-displacement, etc., to meet the ever-increasing CAFE requirements, yet 2-valves-per-cylinder cam-in-block engines are surprisingly viable.

Cheaper to manufacture? Yes. So come on GM, give us another Iron Duke (Aluminum Duke?!) with DI, low friction rings from the Buick 3800 v6, DLC coated everything, whatever it takes, even if you have to take the Kansas Racing Products racing Iron Duke block and evolve it further.
 
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
Resurrect the Iron Duke? Modernized with DI, new materials, all-aluminum, higher compression, ....

Ford also has the 2.7 V6 twin-turbo available that makes 325 hp / 350 lb-ft. Not sure what the MPG figures are on this one. And still probably too heavy for a Focus.


Wonder what the weight of that 2.7L Ecoboost V6 truck engine is? It does use a CGI iron block, which reduces weight a little over a normal iron block,

as Autoweek put it: "CGI allows thinner castings and more compact dimensions, and it requires no bore liners."

and Car&Driver said "Since iron is three times denser than aluminum, the F-150’s engine block is inevitably heavier than if it were cast from recycled beer cans, but there are offsets to consider. Since CGI is stronger and tougher, block walls can be thinner and main bearing saddles narrower, trimming overall engine length and weight. "

Surprisingly it's not all iron, a lot of aluminum too:
1wwMlir.jpg


Therefore, yeah, that would make a great Mustang engine, and you could probably get it into a Focus bay too.

Ford Ecoboost engine weights:
V6 3.5: 449 lbs (203 kg)
V6 2.7: 440 lbs (200 kg)
I4 2.0: 328 lbs(149 kg)
I4 1.6: 251 lbs (114 kg)
I3 1.0: 213 lbs (97 kg)

The Focus RS uses a modified version of the Mustang's 2.3L ecooboost engine, so it's weight is probably 30 lbs (guessing) more than a 2.0L Ecoboost.
By using the compact 2.7L V6, you would probably need 80 more lbs worth of front end mass.
 
Thanks for digging this up. I want to take a look at the new Fusion Sport AWD equipped with this 2.7 engine, when it comes out later this year.
 
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Thanks for digging this up. I want to take a look at the new Fusion Sport AWD equipped with this 2.7 engine, when it comes out later this year.

Wow, that would be a hot F150-engined Fusion! Compact dimensions in a FWD application, check. Expect 5.5 seconds 0-60 in a Fusion. That engine, with heads, is very cube shaped, and almost as light as an all-Al design.

I actually admire the 1.0L ecoboost, available in the Focus right now. I own a 2016 Focus at 143 hp (electric motor only), and it's slow off the line but fun to drive above 20 mph.
 
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Who cares about fuel burn on a sports car?
Engineers like myself lwant to see both power and high fuel economy. You're right though, if its not a daily driver and just a toy, who cares?
 
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Who cares about fuel burn on a sports car?



Probably most of these cars will be DD I'd assume, for guys without a 5 car garage, so its worth considering atleast. I considered an old WRX, but when premium gas was $5/gal, I didn't want to buy 50% more of it just to buzz to work everyday.
 
Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
Resurrect the Iron Duke? Modernized with DI, new materials, all-aluminum, higher compression, ....

Ford also has the 2.7 V6 twin-turbo available that makes 325 hp / 350 lb-ft. Not sure what the MPG figures are on this one. And still probably too heavy for a Focus.


Wonder what the weight of that 2.7L Ecoboost V6 truck engine is? It does use a CGI iron block, which reduces weight a little over a normal iron block,

as Autoweek put it: "CGI allows thinner castings and more compact dimensions, and it requires no bore liners."

and Car&Driver said "Since iron is three times denser than aluminum, the F-150’s engine block is inevitably heavier than if it were cast from recycled beer cans, but there are offsets to consider. Since CGI is stronger and tougher, block walls can be thinner and main bearing saddles narrower, trimming overall engine length and weight. "

Surprisingly it's not all iron, a lot of aluminum too:
1wwMlir.jpg


Therefore, yeah, that would make a great Mustang engine, and you could probably get it into a Focus bay too.

Ford Ecoboost engine weights:
V6 3.5: 449 lbs (203 kg)
V6 2.7: 440 lbs (200 kg)
I4 2.0: 328 lbs(149 kg)
I4 1.6: 251 lbs (114 kg)
I3 1.0: 213 lbs (97 kg)

The Focus RS uses a modified version of the Mustang's 2.3L ecooboost engine, so it's weight is probably 30 lbs (guessing) more than a 2.0L Ecoboost.
By using the compact 2.7L V6, you would probably need 80 more lbs worth of front end mass.


Here's the interesting comparison:
An aluminum block GM LS weighs 400 pounds.
The Gen V gained about 20 pounds.
Iron block truck engine, add another 80.

All those extra cams, complicated head castings, and turbos add more weight than you would think. And the higher temperature materials required for the pistons, rings, and valves add cost. This is why the low-tech pushrod engine won't die.
 
Last edited:
I also like pushrod, they make more lineary torqued engines and very docike. Main in the difference is in redline abuse tolerance, since ohc is sleeping at 5k and rods are stressing.
 
Last edited:
Actually comparing real life prices paid and not MSRP's is significant in my opinion too. The RS is having a very limited run so it will definitely be sold at sticker. SS prices vary a lot depending on the options. The ST though, it's rare to see anyone pay 30k for this vehicle. Base ST1 packages can be had for 21-22k. Our loaded Focus ST with Recaros and every option besides a sunroof had a sticker of $30,800. We paid $24.5
 
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Who cares about fuel burn on a sports car?



When the track or HPDE is a distance away. Having the car get somewhat reasonable fuel economy in transit makes campaigning the car more palatable to the budget. Blowing a tank of fuel just to get there and back without flogging the car isn't much fun.

On the track, agreed, it's about smiles per gallon.
 
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Might be even better than that. Supposedly Edge Sport with that engine does it in 5.6s, and Edge Sport is a lot heavier.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...-_3#Post3978793

I forgot to take into account the turbo's build-up of torque at low RPMs before reaching peak power. That rev lag in a normally aspirated engine loses some time. Car and Driver uses brake torquing launch techniques which gets the turbo spinning early. Might be 5 seconds or so.

Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus

Ford Ecoboost engine weights:
V6 3.5: 449 lbs (203 kg)
V6 2.7: 440 lbs (200 kg)
I4 2.0: 328 lbs(149 kg)
I4 1.6: 251 lbs (114 kg)
I3 1.0: 213 lbs (97 kg)


Here's the interesting comparison:
An aluminum block GM LS weighs 400 pounds.
The Gen V gained about 20 pounds.
Iron block truck engine, add another 80.

All those extra cams, complicated head castings, and turbos add more weight than you would think. And the higher temperature materials required for the pistons, rings, and valves add cost. This is why the low-tech pushrod engine won't die.


Wow, that means the Camaro SS LT1 v8, at 455 hp, is lighter than Ford's 2.7L V6 making much less power!

Those boosted small-displacement engines do appear to be a complicated solution to laying down power when compared to a pushrod V8 with direct injection, cyl deact, variable valve timing to modernize it. Ford's 2.7L V6 is a nice one though.

Originally Posted By: jigen
The ST though, it's rare to see anyone pay 30k for this vehicle. Base ST1 packages can be had for 21-22k. Our loaded Focus ST with Recaros and every option besides a sunroof had a sticker of $30,800. We paid $24.5
That is a great deal. Only thing you give up is the bragging rights about having an RS, the AWD, and the acceleration. Those FocusST Recaro seats are fantastic:
79835109.jpg
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
A focus is the same price as a 6.2 camaro?

Focus RS is $37k just like a Camaro SS. The Focus RS is incredibly fun to drive and equipped well there at least. The real value bargain is the Camaro 335 hp V6 model for $26k.


In contrast to the dealer I spoke to weeks ago, the one I was in today plans on GOUGING (OUCH!!) their ONE allocated Focus RS for and additional $25K OVER sticker!!
31.gif
eek.gif
mad.gif


They have a yellow GT350 on the showroom floor, which was ordered, and then rejected by the customer for dislike of the color, with a dealer 'markup' of $35K right on a sticker on the side of the factory sticker!!! YIKES!
Almost $90K, and it's not even an R!!

Ford, IF you are listening, PLEASE make as many of the RSes as will sell, and FORGET ABOUT the allocation bee ess 'exclusivity', and keeping demands high for a car which will sell like hotcakes ANYWAY.

Do you think that Subie, or Mitsu, wanted to sell less STIs and Evos than they did, or were able to?!?!
 
Originally Posted By: badtlc
and the Focus would destroy the V8 on a track. They aren't really comparable vehicles.


Not necessarily, given the 6th gen f body's suspension tuning, lighter suspension pieces (vs. the older gen f bodies), and especially if it has the GM version of a 'track pack' on it (and equal tire stickiness).

Now on a special stage of a gravel rally, or on snow or ice, then of course it's NO CONTEST, and the time differences could be measured with a sun dial!
 
Originally Posted By: 69GTX
Nice to see Chevy lightening the Camaro SS by some 230 lbs. That helps to get them closer to the 1998-2002 LS1 4th gens that were around 3400-3500 lbs.


Mine's about 3175, wet, but without me in it. (base, stripped car, no A/C, no rear seats, and some other 'diet tricks'. ;0 )
 
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
Maybe this just means pushrod V-8's make sense.



Of COURSE pushrod engines "make sense" for passenger cars. The whole idea that they're in any way inferior is just a fabrication of the automotive press who only think in terms of "wow, that's different it must be better," and is a holdover from the 80s. It sure didn't originate with engineers in charge of building on-highway cars.

Pushrods and overhead cams open and close the valves, that's all. Neither one has a distinct advantage below about 7000 RPM, and guess what? Most passenger car engines never go north of 7000 RPM anyway, especially the larger ones. Above that, the lower inertia of an overhead-cam system has an advantage, as does being able to put 4 smaller valves in a cylinder instead of 2 large ones. But if you can stay below 7000 RPM, pushrods win hands-down in terms of compactness of the overall engine, ESPECIALLY V8 and v6 engines. Just compare a Ford Modular to a GM LSx, or a Chrysler Hemi to a Chrysler 4.7 SOHC to see the difference.


Pushrod engines can be made to handle high revs (up to ~10K RPM) as you know, but, they are NOT quite what I would call 'streetable' in that form (crazy stupid valve spring pressures, titanium everything, and build tolerances/balancing which can hardly be measured).
 
This sums up why the pushrod is winning the war:

"(The LT1 V8 has) A fantastic power:efficiency ratio, while weighing in at only 465 pounds fully dressed, giving the LT1 an equally impressive power:weight ratio.
To compare, a BMW 550i’s 4.4L DOHC twin-turbo V8 is larger, heavier (503 pounds), has a lower compression ratio (10.0:1) and most to GM’s advantage, weaker (400 hp in the 550i) and less efficient (23 hwy mpg)
." == GM Authority web page

So if Ford could put in an LT1 in an F150 or Mustang, they'd get 455 hp, and it would weigh the same as Ford's own 2.7L ecoboost v6 making 325 hp, surprising fact.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
This sums up why the pushrod is winning the war:

"(The LT1 V8 has) A fantastic power:efficiency ratio, while weighing in at only 465 pounds fully dressed, giving the LT1 an equally impressive power:weight ratio.
To compare, a BMW 550i’s 4.4L DOHC twin-turbo V8 is larger, heavier (503 pounds), has a lower compression ratio (10.0:1) and most to GM’s advantage, weaker (400 hp in the 550i) and less efficient (23 hwy mpg)
." == GM Authority web page

So if Ford could put in an LT1 in an F150 or Mustang, they'd get 455 hp, and it would weigh the same as Ford's own 2.7L ecoboost v6 making 325 hp, surprising fact.


Ford already had a 6.2L engine (SOHC) that makes 411HP/434lb-ft that they used in the F-150. It's probably a bit big for the Mustang but for the trucks it doesn't really matter. The comparable 6.2L engine from GM was the L92 and had comparable power output at 403HP/415lb-ft. There was a 500HP version of Ford's 6.2L available in the Raptor XT. I would imagine the big SOHC mill would be a bit heavier though.

Another engine of interest would be Dodge's 6.4L with 480HP and a comparably compact pushrod package.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom