CarSPIN Forums

http://jalopnik.com/by-the-numbers-2017-honda-civic-type-r-vs-focus-rs-wr-1796140398

For me, the Golf R is the only option. I think the Civic is the ugliest car on sale today, it's FWD only, and it's a full second slower to 100 kph than the Golf R DSG and Focus RS.

Don't you get the ///M140i up there? Here it's about 40K.

Tough call, can't really say for sure.

Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on June 16, 2017, 07:24:52 AM
Don't you get the ///M140i up there? Here it's about 40K.

No.  2-series is the only baby Bimmer we get up here.

Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on June 16, 2017, 07:24:52 AM
Don't you get the ///M140i up there? Here it's about 40K.

We get an M240i (and 230i).

Base price on the 2-series is under 40k, but with comparable options that these hot hatches tend to come with you are looking at 45k-55k. An M240i isn't much cheaper than an M2 last time I looked.

I found the Focus RS more fun to drive than the Golf R, and not as brutally punishing in routine conditions as some reviewers suggested. (Probably they had more track-focused setups.) The Golf's flavor is to be relaxed if you drive it gently, but I preferred the Focus's always-fun approach. The Golf does of course still have the posher interior.

I see the Civic's niche being the handling crispness of the Focus with a dash more civility; a roomier, higher-quality interior; and arguably better looks. The big question mark will be the former point -- if it can't compete for handling *or* power, it's basically only for people who are devoted to Honda.

I'd actually probably go Civic here.

STI engine is too old at this point.  Update the powertrain and that's the clear favorite for me.  Golf R is nice, but too boring.  The Focus RS does absolutely nothing for me.

Quote from: SJ_GTI on June 16, 2017, 07:25:46 AM
Tough call, can't really say for sure.

Thought for sure you were going to write in the Chevy SS :lol:

Quote from: SJ_GTI on June 16, 2017, 07:27:24 AM
We get an M240i (and 230i).

Base price on the 2-series is under 40k, but with comparable options that these hot hatches tend to come with you are looking at 45k-55k. An M240i isn't much cheaper than an M2 last time I looked.

M240i starts at 45K.  It's in an entirely other league, pricing wise, than the others.

Focus RS.

I think. I'd have to look at SCCA classing.

Power, speed, fun factor, Focus RS.  Don't care about the touchy feely.

I feel like these cars are all emotional vehicles, and very few will actually cross shop them in real life, aside from a few Jalopnik commentors.\


Whoever wants a CTR, Focus RS, or Golf R likely wouldn't ever cross over to either brand.

Quote from: 2o6 on June 16, 2017, 09:26:09 AM
I feel like these cars are all emotional vehicles, and very few will actually cross shop them in real life, aside from a few Jalopnik commentors.\


Whoever wants a CTR, Focus RS, or Golf R likely wouldn't ever cross over to either brand.

Golf R would be choice number 2.  The Civic Type R looks like a juke box on wheels; saw one on the road last night.  Never been a Subaru fan.

Quote from: CaminoRacer on June 16, 2017, 09:14:18 AM
Focus RS.

I think. I'd have to look at SCCA classing.

CTR will probably end up in a slower class than the FoRS because it's not AWD.  I'm guessing it'll likely end up in D, whereas the AWD competitors are all in B.  I personally feel the FoRS is a bit under-classed there on paper (the similarly powerful, similarly weighted Audi TT RS is in SS), but based on the ones I've seen run locally, the results seem in line with the class.

That said, I like the FoRS a lot.  It's one of the few turbo hot hatches that actually sounds good and characterful.  The reportedly overly harsh suspension would be my only concern given the road conditions here.  When guys from Cali are complaining that the FoRS is harsh on their smooth roads, I fear how jarring it would be on the frost heaved and cratered roads around here.

It's obvious which one I'd choose, right?

STi Type RA

Or just regular 2018 STi.  Although the 2018 FoRS comes in red and has a mechanical front LSD now along with supposedly better tuned suspension for the street.

If I must, CTR cause I'm a Honda fanboy.  But for 35K, I'd buy something else.

Since I won't be caught dead in a Ford and the Honda is hideous! That leaves the Sube and the Golf R! I'm a big Subaru fan but at 43 I can't own a car with a wing that size..... Golf R it is!

Quote from: Gotta-Qik-C6 on June 17, 2017, 09:27:02 AM
Since I won't be caught dead in a Ford...

Pity GM pretty much abandoned the affordable performance segment...

Quote from: MX793 on June 17, 2017, 09:33:27 AM
Pity GM pretty much abandoned the affordable performance segment...

I agree 10000%! Me and my boys were talking about this the other day........

Lol at "they do 0-62 for some reason." They do it because 0-100 kph.

Civic Type R vs Focus RS direct comparison (mostly driving impressions, sorry bench racers)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra2J8q8ahPg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra2J8q8ahPg)

Interesting that they complain about the FoRS's turning circle when, according to the article in the OP, the CTR is actually slightly worse.

The Golf R is probably the most boring to drive. But it wins by default because I can't see myself in any of the other 3.

Golf R. 

STI is too old and not a hatch,  Civic is too ugly and fwd, and the RS is too boy racer and has a douche vibe about it.

Quote from: Gotta-Qik-C6 on June 17, 2017, 09:27:02 AM
Since I won't be caught dead in a Ford and the Honda is hideous! That leaves the Sube and the Golf R! I'm a big Subaru fan but at 43 I can't own a car with a wing that size..... Golf R it is!

You can get it like this too.

(https://media.ed.edmunds-media.com/subaru/wrx/2017/oem/2017_subaru_wrx_sedan_sti-limited_rq_oem_1_1280.jpg)
(http://www.cars101.com/subaru/wrxsti/wrxsti16-sti-59.jpg)

Quote from: 68_427 on June 17, 2017, 12:58:39 PM
You can get it like this too.

(https://media.ed.edmunds-media.com/subaru/wrx/2017/oem/2017_subaru_wrx_sedan_sti-limited_rq_oem_1_1280.jpg)
(http://www.cars101.com/subaru/wrxsti/wrxsti16-sti-59.jpg)

Then it just looks like a Corolla with front fender vents and quad pipes.

Quote from: MX793 on June 17, 2017, 01:11:54 PM
Then it just looks like a Corolla with front fender vents and quad pipes.

Sounds perfect for someone who's 43 and owns a Corolla.

Just got a chance to read the full article. What a pointless piece of journalism. A car "magazine" doing magazine racing. :facepalm: :lol:

At this point in my life, I care a whole lot more about how a car feels when I drive it than any numbers associated with it or even how it looks. Even if I did decide to start competing, it'd be casual events where I'm just looking to have fun, not actually win anything.

Quote from: 68_427 on June 17, 2017, 01:13:43 PM
Sounds perfect for someone who's 43 and owns a Corolla.

:clap:

Quote from: SJ_GTI on June 16, 2017, 07:25:46 AM
Tough call, can't really say for sure.

You're creeping on the declaration that you regret your purchase...

I've only driven the Golf R, but with 98% hunch, it is what I'd choose. The others are compromised in various ways as actual cars you have to drive.

I still don't understand why they tuned the RS suspension the way they did. And nobody who has reviewed it does either. I wish VW would put the 3.6 in the R. Then it would be a complete no brainer

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 18, 2017, 07:51:37 AM
I still don't understand why they tuned the RS suspension the way they did. And nobody who has reviewed it does either. I wish VW would put the 3.6 in the R. Then it would be a complete no brainer

But then people could DOWNPIPE AND A TUNE and thus VW would have to warranty the cars

3.6 is heavier and probably more expensive, and the chassis configuration would be very expensive, for AFAIK nowhere else does MQB use the (transverse-centric) VR6.

Quote from: GoCougs on June 18, 2017, 10:50:21 AM
3.6 is heavier and probably more expensive, and the chassis configuration would be very expensive, for AFAIK nowhere else does MQB use the (transverse-centric) VR6.

The Atlas, but that is also the newest MQB vehicle

Wowzers, are they ever whoring out MQB - the Atlas is pretty ginormous - some 30" longer than the Golf.

It's very versatile. Hopefully nothing goes wrong with it. Smart play though.

Regarding the 3.6, don't forget that all the mainstream VW blocks are iron. Making the 3.6 block aluminum would probably put it on equal footing with the EA888 weight wise. Only thing that would suffer is fuel economy, which probably isn't an issue for someone dropping 40 on anything.

I'm pretty sure VW wants to move into a primarily 2.0T auto manufacturer.  Baring the US only Atlas and dated Passat/Tourag, nothing in their lineup uses more than 4 cylinders.  When was the last time they even bothered to update the VR6 anyway, 10 years ago?  Wishing for that in the Golf is like me wishing for an updated K24 in the Si; it's not gonna happen.

Quote from: Xer0 on June 18, 2017, 04:03:15 PM
I'm pretty sure VW wants to move into a primarily 2.0T auto manufacturer.  Baring the US only Atlas and dated Passat/Tourag, nothing in their lineup uses more than 4 cylinders.  When was the last time they even bothered to update the VR6 anyway, 10 years ago?  Wishing for that in the Golf is like me wishing for an updated K24 in the Si; it's not gonna happen.

More accurately, I think VWAG as a whole is moving towards an all Forced Induction lineup.  They've put very little into the development of N/A motors over the past decade and have been systematically phasing out their naturally aspirated powerplants.  The 3.2 V6, available in the previous generation A6.  The 4.2L V8.  The 2.5L I5 (good riddance).  VR6 will be the next to go.

Quote from: MX793 on June 18, 2017, 04:14:02 PM
More accurately, I think VWAG as a whole is moving towards an all Forced Induction lineup.  They've put very little into the development of N/A motors over the past decade and have been systematically phasing out their naturally aspirated powerplants.  The 3.2 V6, available in the previous generation A6.  The 4.2L V8.  The 2.5L I5 (good riddance).  VR6 will be the next to go.

The R8's / Lambo V10 is probably the last great NA engine.

Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on June 18, 2017, 05:27:48 PM
The R8's / Lambo V10 is probably the last great NA engine.

LS7?

Quote from: Gotta-Qik-C6 on June 18, 2017, 05:34:28 PM
LS7?

The one that was developed over a decade ago, hasn't been updated, and that hasn't been in a production vehicle since 2 model years ago?

Quote from: MX793 on June 18, 2017, 06:58:24 PM
The one that was developed over a decade ago, hasn't been updated, and that hasn't been in a production vehicle since 2 model years ago?

...and producing less bhp per cubic inch than engines from 40 years previous.

Quote from: MX793 on June 18, 2017, 04:14:02 PM
More accurately, I think VWAG as a whole is moving towards an all Forced Induction lineup.  They've put very little into the development of N/A motors over the past decade and have been systematically phasing out their naturally aspirated powerplants.  The 3.2 V6, available in the previous generation A6.  The 4.2L V8.  The 2.5L I5 (good riddance).  VR6 will be the next to go.

I meant VW as a brand more than VWAG as a company.  Larger engines will certainly continue as they are needed in Bently, higher end Audi's, and Lambos.  The company wide move to FI is 100% accurate though, but I wonder where that puts Lambo.  IIRC, the head of Lamborghini mentioned that their sports cars will remain N/A.

Quote from: MX793 on June 18, 2017, 06:58:24 PM
The one that was developed over a decade ago, hasn't been updated, and that hasn't been in a production vehicle since 2 model years ago?

So it shouldn't be considered a great NA engine?

Quote from: Gotta-Qik-C6 on June 18, 2017, 07:55:28 PM
So it shouldn't be considered a great NA engine?

Sure, but it's not the last great NA engine as there are some great NA engines still in production today.

Quote from: MX793 on June 18, 2017, 06:58:24 PM
The one that was developed over a decade ago, hasn't been updated, and that hasn't been in a production vehicle since 2 model years ago?

Exactly his point - it hasn't been beat yet ;).

Quote from: FoMoJo on June 18, 2017, 07:21:05 PM
...and producing less bhp per cubic inch than engines from 40 years previous.

The LS7's 505 hp net equates to ~550 hp at the crank, and precisely NO engines ~40 years ago, not even the best of the bunch, the 426 Hemi, hit that figure (more like ~475 hp). And those of course were all 600-750 lb big blocks whereas the LS7 is a ~400 lb small block.

I think I'd have to go with the STI, though the CTR and FoRS are both really interesting. Honestly, if I had $40k to drop on a DD, the STI would probably be very high on my list.

Quote from: GoCougs on June 18, 2017, 09:38:39 PM
Exactly his point - it hasn't been beat yet ;).

Didn't say "greatest", just "great".  There have been many and still are some great NA engines over the years.  LS7 definitely makes the list, though as it is no longer used in a production car it's not the "last great NA engine".  Current production NA motors that I think earn the "great" adjective include the new LT1, the Audi/Lambo V10, the Ford Voodoo (Coyote is no slouch either), and the H6 in the 911 GT3.

Ferrari V12 too of course.

I just hope said automakers can hold on through this F/I malaise. I think the epic diesel problems are harbingers of what's to come with F/I motors. I'm not sure if automakers are similarly cheating on F/I motors, but in general, turbo motors do not deliver on real-world economy (and probably emissions), and the sooner they are recognized as such, the sooner we can get back to great motors.

I would also throw in the Camaro's 335 hp 3.6L V6 - sounds fantastic, great performance, good economy. 

It's bizarre + sad that we are moving to a time where NA engines are becoming the niche + special edition engines. Porsche has adopted this model, as to a degree has Audi (R8) and Ferrari

I still think + wish companies would go more with hybrid tech to boost performance. I'd much rather have a V6 + hybrid setup than a 2.0T

Although my pick of these 4 is the Golf, I wouldn't be in the market for any of them. Realistically, up here these cars are more like $45,000 CAD, and to me that's stupid. The thought of a do-all daily driver "sports car" doesn't appeal to me. I'd rather take that $45k and buy a Miata or 124 Spider, plus a used SUV like an Escape for daily driver and winter duty.

Quote from: GoCougs on June 18, 2017, 09:45:18 PM
The LS7's 505 hp net equates to ~550 hp at the crank, and precisely NO engines ~40 years ago, not even the best of the bunch, the 426 Hemi, hit that figure (more like ~475 hp). And those of course were all 600-750 lb big blocks whereas the LS7 is a ~400 lb small block.

The 426 HEMI was, of course, a locomotive engine, weighing in at a ridiculous figure.  The best of the bunch was this one (http://www.hotrod.com/articles/90-day-wonder-sohc-427-cammer/) churning out 616 hp at 7,000 rpm and 515 lb-ft torque at 3,800 rpm; at a much more reasonable weight.

These engines, including the HEMI, are are iconic for the era.  I just don't see anything for this era, considering the advancements in technology, that are comparable, including the Voodoo.

Quote from: GoCougs on June 17, 2017, 08:54:40 PM
You're creeping on the declaration that you regret your purchase...

(https://i.imgur.com/utzTCyo.png)

Quote from: FoMoJo on June 19, 2017, 07:46:39 AM
The 426 HEMI was, of course, a locomotive engine, weighing in at a ridiculous figure.  The best of the bunch was this one (http://www.hotrod.com/articles/90-day-wonder-sohc-427-cammer/) churning out 616 hp at 7,000 rpm and 515 lb-ft torque at 3,800 rpm; at a much more reasonable weight.

These engines, including the HEMI, are are iconic for the era.  I just don't see anything for this era, considering the advancements in technology, that are comparable, including the Voodoo.

Although formidable, the Ford 427 SOHC was never available in a production car - it was a parts-counter special - plus, 616 hp was NASCAR guise. It was at least as heavy as the Hemi, as Ford copied the Hemi heads, and then to that add the weigh of the SOHC hardware. Few were ever purchased OTC, whereas many thousands of Hemi-powered cars were purchased by the public.

Quote from: GoCougs on June 19, 2017, 09:02:48 AM
Although formidable, the Ford 427 SOHC was never available in a production car - it was a parts-counter special - plus, 616 hp was NASCAR guise. It was at least as heavy as the Hemi, as Ford copied the Hemi heads, and then to that add the weigh of the SOHC hardware. Few were ever purchased OTC, whereas many thousands of Hemi-powered cars were purchased by the public.

Well, the HEMI was developed for NASCAR and then homologated with a detuned street version.  The FE 427 also was developed for racing, but also available in a number of street cars.  Ford just went a step too far for the SOHC version of the FE 427 and the competition just couldn't compete with it; so it was disqualified for NASCAR and never really put on the street; but sought after world wide for racing. 

As for the weight, we had this discussion before.  It was well below the weight of the locomotive HEMI.

Both engines were banned from NASCAR in '65 because they weren't street engines - after the Hemi's domination in '64, NASCAR did not want one or two very expensive engines developed for racing, and then forced into a token number of street cars, dominating the field. That changed in '66 when Chrysler offered the 426 Hemi as a legit option in multiple factory-produced cars. The SOHC 427 was simply too expensive to do so, ergo, it never competed in NASCAR (and the Hemi went on to change the face of not only NASCAR but of drag racing and the muscle car era in general).

The 427 FE had virtually identical bore and stroke, heads were the same size, plus it had the SOHC hardware. Simply look at the width of the intake manifold. The Hemi was called the "elephant" for good reason, but it was smaller than the SOHC 427:

(http://bangshift.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/sohc11.jpg)

(http://www.allpar.com/photos/vimages/engines/1966-street-hemi.jpg)

Quote from: Cookie Monster on June 17, 2017, 10:41:42 AM
RS is too boy racer and has a douche vibe about it.

Sounds right up your alley

Quote from: GoCougs on June 19, 2017, 11:09:32 AM
Both engines were banned from NASCAR in '65 because they weren't street engines - after the Hemi's domination in '64, NASCAR did not want one or two very expensive engines developed for racing, and then forced into a token number of street cars, dominating the field. That changed in '66 when Chrysler offered the 426 Hemi as a legit option in multiple factory-produced cars. The SOHC 427 was simply too expensive to do so, ergo, it never competed in NASCAR (and the Hemi went on to change the face of not only NASCAR but of drag racing and the muscle car era in general).

The 427 FE had virtually identical bore and stroke, heads were the same size, plus it had the SOHC hardware. Simply look at the width of the intake manifold. The Hemi was called the "elephant" for good reason, but it was smaller than the SOHC 427:

(http://bangshift.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/sohc11.jpg)

(http://www.allpar.com/photos/vimages/engines/1966-street-hemi.jpg)

The HEMI had a year in NASCAR before it was banned, the SOHC "sock" motor didn't even get in.  As for expense, it was pretty cheap to make as it used the FE 427 block and required only the heads to be specialized; much like the HEMI, the only difference being that the FE block was rigid enough to sustain the additional stresses without breaking.

As for weight, the FE SOHC 427 weighed just 10 lbs. more than the FE 427 high riser whereas the HEMI was almost 100 lbs. heavier.  This was simply because when bolting the the heads to the existing block, the block kept cracking from the additional stresses; so they just kept adding more iron to it until it didn't break.  For that matter, the FE was more of a mid size rather than a big block with a thin wall design that was precision engineered; but limited the displacement.

Not being allowed by NASCAR, the obvious alternative was the drag strip; where it, eventually, blew everything else off the track.

Quote from: SJ_GTI on June 19, 2017, 08:55:05 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/utzTCyo.png)

OH NO

IMO DSG is the way to go for the Golf R.

Quote from: GoCougs on June 20, 2017, 12:24:36 PM
OH NO

IMO DSG is the way to go for the Golf R.

Let me guess... because it's faster 0-60.  :wanker:

Quote from: FoMoJo on June 19, 2017, 02:46:44 PM
The HEMI had a year in NASCAR before it was banned, the SOHC "sock" motor didn't even get in.  As for expense, it was pretty cheap to make as it used the FE 427 block and required only the heads to be specialized; much like the HEMI, the only difference being that the FE block was rigid enough to sustain the additional stresses without breaking.

As for weight, the FE SOHC 427 weighed just 10 lbs. more than the FE 427 high riser whereas the HEMI was almost 100 lbs. heavier.  This was simply because when bolting the the heads to the existing block, the block kept cracking from the additional stresses; so they just kept adding more iron to it until it didn't break.  For that matter, the FE was more of a mid size rather than a big block with a thin wall design that was precision engineered; but limited the displacement.

Not being allowed by NASCAR, the obvious alternative was the drag strip; where it, eventually, blew everything else off the track.

Casting a block is cheap - whether it's an existing block or a new block. There was a lot of cost in the all the additional hardware to run OHCs - gears, chains, cams, bearings. Proof's in the pudding - if it was all that and a bag of chips, and was cost effective to produce, Ford would have produced it, despite not qualifying for NASCAR.

It weighs at least 100 lbs more than a standard FE - maybe even 150 lbs - the heads are ginormous and all that OHC gear is steel. The Hemi was designed from the ground up as a mega hp racing engine. The 427 SOHC was modifying a passenger car engine from the '50s. It's not "precision" engineering it's design for intent and the Hemi went on to change NASCAR, drag racing and the muscle car era.

427 SOHC undressed/dressed:

(http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/attachments/general-4x4-discussion/39807d1037661850-anyone-use-ford-427-sohc-427sohc-chains.jpg)

(http://cdn.dragzine.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/2/files/2011/03/SOHC_Cammer008.jpg)

Quote from: Rockraven on June 20, 2017, 12:29:04 PM
Let me guess... because it's faster 0-60.  :wanker:

The Golf R has a fair amount of lag.

Thanks for the easy W.

Quote from: GoCougs on June 20, 2017, 01:26:06 PM
Casting a block is cheap - whether it's an existing block or a new block. There was a lot of cost in the all the additional hardware to run OHCs - gears, chains, cams, bearings. Proof's in the pudding - if it was all that and a bag of chips, and was cost effective to produce, Ford would have produced it, despite not qualifying for NASCAR.

It weighs at least 100 lbs more than a standard FE - maybe even 150 lbs - the heads are ginormous and all that OHC gear is steel. The Hemi was designed from the ground up as a mega hp racing engine. The 427 SOHC was modifying a passenger car engine from the '50s. It's not "precision" engineering it's design for intent and the Hemi went on to change NASCAR, drag racing and the muscle car era.

So uninformed :huh:...http://www.gomog.com/allmorgan/engineweights.html (http://www.gomog.com/allmorgan/engineweights.html)

Ford FE big block          650         (332-428 CID)
Ford FE big block          670     (1) ('59 352 CID)
Ford FE                          625     (48)
Ford 427 SOHC             680     (48)

Quote from: FoMoJo on June 20, 2017, 02:00:52 PM
So uninformed :huh:...http://www.gomog.com/allmorgan/engineweights.html (http://www.gomog.com/allmorgan/engineweights.html)

Ford FE big block          650         (332-428 CID)
Ford FE big block          670     (1) ('59 352 CID)
Ford FE                          625     (48)
Ford 427 SOHC             680     (48)

Nah, simply look at the pics:

427 SOHC long block undressed:
(http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/attachments/general-4x4-discussion/39807d1037661850-anyone-use-ford-427-sohc-427sohc-chains.jpg)

FE OHV long block undressed:
(http://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/RAAAAOSwCU1Y1FiW/s-l500.jpg)

427 SOHC long block dressed:
(http://cdn.dragzine.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/2/files/2011/03/SOHC_Cammer008.jpg)

FE OHV long block dressed:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/5c/7c/9d/5c7c9d0b6fda32f103413b5bfdd3d740.jpg)

427 SOHC in '70 Mustang:
(http://www.newoldcar.com/images/Featured_Cars/Ford/Mustang/63_1970_Ford_Mustang_Mach_1_SOHC_Cammer/1970%20ford%20mustang%20mach%201%20sohc%20cammer%20engine%20bay%202.jpg)

FE OHV in '69 Mustang:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/13/25/30/13253041c13b2cfb1cfc959d8d478c44.jpg)

A lot of that added volume from the heads was empty space.  The 427 cammer was largely the same as the regular 427 side-oiler other than the heads.  Heads don't add 150 lbs.

For comparison, the 4.0L OHV Cologne V6 weighs within a few lbs of the SOHC version.  The OHC conversion of that motor was similar to the 427 cammer (idler shaft in place of the in-block cam with SOHC heads slapped on top).  '97 Explorer XL 2WD with the OHV motor has the same listed curb weight as the 2WD SOHC "Limited" model.

Wait, did Cougs just use pictures as evidence of a weight difference between engines?  :wtf:

Quote from: BimmerM3 on June 20, 2017, 04:37:04 PM
Wait, did Cougs just use pictures as evidence of a weight difference between engines?  :wtf:

It takes up more space, it's gotta weigh more!

No offense guys, but you don't stand a chance ;). Jesus, firstly, before tumbling down this rabbit hole, just look at the pictures.

Take engine block A, modify it a bit, and then put on far larger heads, with cams, gears, chain and the larger intake to bridge the larger gap, full well knowing everything is made out of either cast iron and steel, and you get a larger, heavier engine:

Larger heads:  25 lbs ea
Additional gears, chain, and larger timing cover:  25 lbs
Larger intake manifold:  10 lbs
Additional cams, mounting and valve gear:  15 lbs
Minus lifters and push rods: -10 lbs

So, ~100 lbs heavier.

Good morning fellow townfolk! What's new in the village today?

Quote from: GoCougs on June 20, 2017, 05:11:03 PM
No offense guys, but you don't stand a chance ;). Jesus, firstly, before tumbling down this rabbit hole, just look at the pictures.

Take engine block A, modify it a bit, and then put on far larger heads, with cams, gears, chain and the larger intake to bridge the larger gap, full well knowing everything is made out of either cast iron and steel, and you get a larger, heavier engine:

Larger heads:  25 lbs ea
Additional gears, chain, and larger timing cover:  25 lbs
Larger intake manifold:  10 lbs
Additional cams, mounting and valve gear:  15 lbs
Minus lifters and push rods: -10 lbs

So, ~100 lbs heavier.

Nevermind.

Hmm..

This apple
(http://jonvilma.com/images/apple-16.jpg)

Is clearly smaller and lighter then this orange
(http://schoolofthinking.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/orange_PNG766.png)

Pay attention people - shrug-

:wtf:

Classic cougs.

No offense, but you guys don't stand a chance ;).

Quote from: GoCougs on June 21, 2017, 12:31:10 PM
No offense, but you guys don't stand a chance ;).

What does that even mean. I have no skin in this argument, but you can't expect to be taken seriously by pulling numbers out of your ass. :huh:

Quote from: GoCougs on June 21, 2017, 12:31:10 PM
No offense, but you guys don't stand a chance ;).

When Einstein said "Imagination is more important than knowledge", it can be assumed that he did not mean you should try to counter fact with what you imagine something to be.  Also, when he said "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts", he was being sarcastic.

In comparison, the street hemi weighed approximately 850 lbs. :huh:

Quote from: giant_mtb on June 21, 2017, 01:03:31 PM
What does that even mean. I have no skin in this argument, but you can't expect to be taken seriously by pulling numbers out of your ass. :huh:

I am correct and anyone that disagrees with me is wrong, and those with a bit of knowledge know it:  the 427 SOHC is notably larger, heavier and more expensive than the 427 FE OHV.

Quote from: GoCougs on June 21, 2017, 03:26:18 PM
I am correct and anyone that disagrees with me is wrong, and those with a bit of knowledge know it:  the 427 SOHC is notably larger, heavier and more expensive than the 427 FE OHV.

Despite the Cammer's exotic cachet, in reality the engine was simply a two-valve, single-overhead-cam conversion of Ford's existing 427 FE V8, and a quick and cheap one at that. Inside the company, the Cammer was known as the "90 day wonder," a low-investment parallel project to the expensive DOHC Indy engine based on the Ford small-block V8.  To save time and money on the conversion, the heads were cast iron and the cam drive was a roller chain. The oiling system was revised and to manage the greater horizontal inertia loads generated by the increased rpm, cross-bolted main caps were incorporated into the block casting. These features were then adopted on all 427 CID engines across the board

The engines were essentially hand-built for racing, with combustion chambers fully machined to reduce variability. Nevertheless, Ford recommended blueprinting before use in racing applications. With a single four-barrel carburetor they weighed 680 lb (308 kg)[37] and were rated at 616 horsepower (459 kW) at 7,000 rpm & 515 lb·ft (698 N·m) of torque @ 3,800 rpm, with dual four-barrel carburetors 657 horsepower (490 kW) at 7,500 rpm & 575 lb·ft (780 N·m) of torque @ 4,200 rpm. Ford sold them via the parts counter, the single four-barrel model as part C6AE-6007-363S, the dual carburetor model as part C6AE-6007-359J for $2350.00 (as of October, 1968).

Quote from: FoMoJo on June 21, 2017, 04:27:26 PM

Despite the Cammer's exotic cachet, in reality the engine was simply a two-valve, single-overhead-cam conversion of Ford's existing 427 FE V8, and a quick and cheap one at that. Inside the company, the Cammer was known as the "90 day wonder," a low-investment parallol project to the expensive DOHC Indy engine based on the Ford small-block V8.  To save time and money on the conversion, the heads were cast iron and the cam drive was a roller chain. The oiling system was revised and to manage the greater horizontal inertia loads generated by the increased rpm, cross-bolted main caps were incorporated into the block casting. These features were then adopted on all 427 CID engines across the board

The engines were essentially hand-built for racing, with combustion chambers fully machined to reduce variability. Nevertheless, Ford recommended blueprinting before use in racing applications. With a single four-barrel carburetor they weighed 680 lb (308 kg)[37] and were rated at 616 horsepower (459 kW) at 7,000 rpm & 515 lb·ft (698 N·m) of torque @ 3,800 rpm, with dual four-barrel carburetors 657 horsepower (490 kW) at 7,500 rpm & 575 lb·ft (780 N·m) of torque @ 4,200 rpm. Ford sold them via the parts counter, the single four-barrel model as part C6AE-6007-363S, the dual carburetor model as part C6AE-6007-359J for $2350.00 (as of October, 1968).

Don't bring numerical supporting evidence here.  Just look at the pictures.  The Cammer is way bigger.  It must weigh at least 150-200 lbs more with all of that extra iron.

Man, I haven't seen a old guy do a slap down like this since George Foreman.  :lol:

Quote from: FoMoJo on June 21, 2017, 04:27:26 PM

Despite the Cammer's exotic cachet, in reality the engine was simply a two-valve, single-overhead-cam conversion of Ford's existing 427 FE V8, and a quick and cheap one at that. Inside the company, the Cammer was known as the "90 day wonder," a low-investment parallol project to the expensive DOHC Indy engine based on the Ford small-block V8.  To save time and money on the conversion, the heads were cast iron and the cam drive was a roller chain. The oiling system was revised and to manage the greater horizontal inertia loads generated by the increased rpm, cross-bolted main caps were incorporated into the block casting. These features were then adopted on all 427 CID engines across the board

The engines were essentially hand-built for racing, with combustion chambers fully machined to reduce variability. Nevertheless, Ford recommended blueprinting before use in racing applications. With a single four-barrel carburetor they weighed 680 lb (308 kg)[37] and were rated at 616 horsepower (459 kW) at 7,000 rpm & 515 lb·ft (698 N·m) of torque @ 3,800 rpm, with dual four-barrel carburetors 657 horsepower (490 kW) at 7,500 rpm & 575 lb·ft (780 N·m) of torque @ 4,200 rpm. Ford sold them via the parts counter, the single four-barrel model as part C6AE-6007-363S, the dual carburetor model as part C6AE-6007-359J for $2350.00 (as of October, 1968).

I can cut-n-paste too from wherever. But you're still wrong, and that's okay, because that's what makes the 'SPIN the 'SPIN ;).

Now you get to explain away why Ford obsoleted the glorious FE and SOHC in favor of the 385 series, particularly the Boss 429. Go ahead, I know a lot about that as well  :lol:.

Quote from: GoCougs on June 21, 2017, 05:38:54 PM
I can cut-n-paste too from wherever. But you're still wrong, and that's okay, because that's what makes the 'SPIN the 'SPIN ;).

Now you get to explain away why Ford obsoleted the glorious FE and SOHC in favor of the 385 series, particularly the Boss 429. Go ahead, I know a lot about that as well  :lol:.

Well, let's hear what you know. :huh:

Quote from: FoMoJo on June 21, 2017, 05:45:56 PM
Well, let's hear what you know. :huh:

Oh, I think I've earned the privilege to request a performance (at least partially blame the flitting chatterings of the 'SPIN peanut gallery).

Quote from: GoCougs on June 21, 2017, 05:56:44 PM
Oh, I think I've earned the privilege to request a performance (at least partially blame the flitting chatterings of the 'SPIN peanut gallery).

Perform then.

:wtf:

Quote from: GoCougs on June 20, 2017, 01:32:46 PM
The Golf R has a fair amount of lag.

Thanks for the easy W.

So you're gonna do launch control from every stop?

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 21, 2017, 07:42:44 PM
So you're gonna do launch control from every stop?

Drive the Golf R.

Quote from: FoMoJo on June 21, 2017, 06:07:30 PM
Perform then.

Well, it's the same reason why an motor is replaced - it was old.

The FE dates back to the '50s, and was the contemporary of the first gen Hemi and Chevy W block. By the time '65 rolled around, Mopar moved onto the second gen 426 Hemi and the later iterations of the RB motor (383/440), and Chevy debuted the Mark IV big block. Ford saw the light at the end of the tunnel - the FE could not compete with these motors, especially if the horsepower wars were to continue.

Enter the 385 series debuting in 1968 - beefier block, longer rods, bigger values, better head design (canted valves), larger crank/rod bearings. As we know now, not long after the 385 was introduced the muscle car era was over, and performance versions of the 385 - Boss 429, 429 CJ, 429 SCJ - never quite got off the ground, and the FE lived on well into the '70s.

Quote from: GoCougs on June 22, 2017, 04:27:58 PM
Well, it's the same reason why an motor is replaced - it was old.

The FE dates back to the '50s, and was the contemporary of the first gen Hemi and Chevy W block. By the time '65 rolled around, Mopar moved onto the second gen 426 Hemi and the later iterations of the RB motor (383/440), and Chevy debuted the Mark IV big block. Ford saw the light at the end of the tunnel - the FE could not compete with these motors, especially if the horsepower wars were to continue.

Enter the 385 series debuting in 1968 - beefier block, longer rods, bigger values, better head design (canted valves), larger crank/rod bearings. As we know now, not long after the 385 was introduced the muscle car era was over, and performance versions of the 385 - Boss 429, 429 CJ, 429 SCJ - never quite got off the ground, and the FE lived on well into the '70s.

Certainly, engine design evolves, however, in many ways the FE was far ahead of its contemporaries well into the 60s and even the 70s...The FE's thinwall casting production method was innovative and forward-looking in the mid-1950, resulting in lower weight and dramatically reduced production costs. Ford's competitors at the time required thicker castings to mask the flaws and defects that resulted from their processes. Improving quality and allowing thinner walls was accomplished through many engineering improvements, including reducing the number of cores required to cast an engine block. Fewer cores made it easier to assemble the overall mold for casting and reduced the number of potential problems.[48] In the late 1980s when both Ford and GM revamped their V8 offerings, many of the FE's designs and engineering were incorporated in the new engines, including the deep skirt, cross-bolting of the mains and thinwall casting.

It should also be mentioned that for the FE series, and even the Y-block preceding the FE, a higher content of nickel was used for additional strength; though the Pontiac division of GM also used more nickel in their versions of the small block...it was better than Chevy's small block.

It should also be noted that the FE 427 was developed as a racing engine and with the SOHC version, outperformed everything else at the time, including the 429 "Boss" engine.  Very much ahead of its contemporaries.

Also, the 428 CJ and SCJ engines, a cobbled version of the FE 406 bore and FE 410 stroke, was a torque monster beating everything in class on the strip in the late '60s including the revamped Hemis and GM's latest offerings. 

However, as mentioned previously, the thin-wall casting limited the displacement; 428 was the maximum CI achievable, therefore, as its competitors were going 'big', it was necessary for Ford to come out with a true big block, hence, the "385" series; incorporating a number of innovations pioneered by the FE series.

These days there are plenty of FE stroker kits available up to 500 cubic inches, so the 428 limit doesn't hold, but that's moot of course, since all performance variations of the 385 were 429 cubic inches.

Ford knew what it was doing - the FE couldn't go head-to-head with the new competition - just too old - ergo, Ford spent a lot of time and money to replace it.

Of course you can stroke it up to about 484 CI with maximum stroke, but the bore was the limitation due to the thin wall design.  The 427 had a maximum bore at 4.232" with a possible overbore of .030", after which you would be in the water jackets.  The Mopar block could go up to 4.50", 4.625" at a pinch, and could be configured to over 600 CI with maximum stroke. Bear in mind that the 427 was not a production line engine; it received specialized precision grinding treatment at Ford's speed shop and it's purpose was track racing, NASCAR and ultimately Le Mans.  Stroked engines were for the drag strip.  You benefited from increased torque, the 428 CI was an excellent example of this, but you lost out on revs and bhp.

The factory bore of the 385 series was 4.36" with options for overbore.  The stroke on the 429 was 3.59" and for the 460 was 3.85", hence the series name.  Lots of room for increased displacement.  Of course lessons learned from the FE series were incorporated along with improved head design for better flow; but nothing quite matching the FE 427 SOHC with straight ports from the intake and out to the exhaust.