Start a Debate

[Scott Parkhurst]

I think the insane turbo 4-cyl idea is a better one. Minimal weight, can be spun to 9,000-plus, and the 2.3 is a proven player.

300 peak hp would be easy, and fuel economy with a 4 isn't a question. An adjustable wastegate turbo with an intercooler would offer killer performance on demand.

Why bolt in a V-8 without maximizing the cubic inches? For the street, it's the best option. If you're going to pay the weight penalty a V-8 brings, it might as well bring an assload of cubic inches to the party...



~SP~

[ProTouring442]

Look Scott. just because you are raking in the big bucks with my "Lifetime Memberships" doesn't mean I'm loaded too! Ok, just kidding!

You make a good point, but wouldn't a small displacement V8 be more efficient than a 4? Smoother? I dunno. Hell, I don't even own a Ford, much less a 302 or a Turbo Coupe, I'm just thinking outloud... pretty cool for a guy who can't really think!

Heh... heh... you said assload!

Then again, wouldn't a nice 302 with a supercharger, intercooler, 6-speed, and highway gears pull pretty good mileage?

Shiny Side Up!
Bill
'72 442 "Inamorata"

[MarkM66]

Why bolt in a V-8 without maximizing the cubic inches? For the street, it's the best option. If you're going to pay the weight penalty a V-8 brings, it might as well bring an assload of cubic inches to the party...

~SP~

Because the "assload" of cubic inches needs fuel to feed them.

Weight isn't in question here until we know what type of vehicle it's going in. If it's going in a 3500lb+ vehicle, I don't think a couple extra hundred pounds for the engine is going to make or break it. And the low rpm torque from a V8 will be needed for that type of weight.

When you say, "for the street, it's the best option." I'm not sure what you're refering to, the V8 or the turbo 4.

[Scott Parkhurst]

Because the "assload" of cubic inches needs fuel to feed them.

True, but a longer stroke can make adequate torque at a lower rpm level for highway cruising in O/D, and with proper gearing the larger displacement/longer stroke engine could very well equal the fuel economy of a smaller-displacement variant. e.g.- I bet a 383 SBC could match a 327 SBC with all else equal in a Chevelle-sized car, if the rear gears could be played with. The 327 might have to run at 3,000 rpm to comfortably cruise at speed, but the 383 might be fine at 2,500.

Weight isn't in question here until we know what type of vehicle it's going in. If it's going in a 3500lb+ vehicle, I don't think a couple extra hundred pounds for the engine is going to make or break it.

I'm inclined to agree...but I think a 2.3L four-cyl is more than a couple hundred pounds lighter than a SBF. I could be wrong.

And the low rpm torque from a V8 will be needed for that type of weight.

If the vehicle in question is more than 3,500 lbs., a 4 cyl is not a good call...I agree completely.

When you say, "for the street, it's the best option." I'm not sure what you're refering to, the V8 or the turbo 4.

I was referring to maximizing the cubic inches in a given block. I firmly believe in pushing cubes in street applications, since cubic inches will contribute to power across the scale and any further mods will have more impact on a larger-displacement engine versus a smaller one. I'd never build a 327 if I could build a 383. The only reason not to maximize displacement is if there's a rule limiting you from doing so or if the economics prove impossible. If you can, when you can, always run the bigger displacement engine.

But, that's just my opinion...what do I know?

~SP~