Favorite Engines/Transmissions

[Zenith]

They didn't give a crap about gas mileage back then though. Gas was what, 80 cents a gallon? The reason for the turbocharged 4 cylinder is for fast response. The ONLY advantages small engines have over big ones are response, and higher RPMs. Now don't flame me, I'm going to explain why, so people don't make a huge deal out of it.

Due to smaller parts (crankshaft, pistons, etc.), it is much faster to reach the redline. These so called smaller parts have less material, which in turn equals less weight. Now for big blocks, there's more material which means heavier parts, which of course means slower revving.


Simple stuff, guys.

Yeah, unless you know what you're talking about. Response? You mean throttle response? In the way that a turbo has much slower throttle response than an NA V8 because of turbo lag? Engine "response" is a dependent on a hundred other things before engine layout plays a factor.

I don't know where to begin on the whole "V8's are heavier and therefore rev slower" argument. It's just wrong and ignorant. First off, smaller does not mean lighter. Materials vary from engine to engine. There are plenty of small block V8's that have far less rotating mass than smaller engines.

You're 13 and you're trying to lecture people on physics?

 

[Camaroyenko]

Don't know much about transmissions, but here are my favorite engines:
S65
S85
S38
13B
2JZ-GTE
RB26DETT
930.6X

Finally, an on topic post 👍

 

[Camaroyenko]

Yeah, unless you know what you're talking about. Response? You mean throttle response? In the way that a turbo has much slower throttle response than an NA V8?

I don't know where to begin on the whole "V8's are heavier and therefore rev slower" argument. First off, smaller does not mean lighter. Materials vary from engine to engine. There are plenty of small block V8's that have far less rotating mass than smaller engines.

You're 13 and you're trying to lecture people on physics?

Yes, I do mean throttle response. On a 4 cylinder engine, turbo lag will be present (obviously).

Yes, indeed they do vary. But we're talking drastically smaller, so I think that has an affect.


I'm not lecturing people on physics. It started when SOMEBODY said that I have a "well-rounded taste in cars". Had that not been said, maybe this thread would be worthy.

 

[Tornado]

Simple stuff, guys.

It would be considerably more simple if it was accurate.

 

[Camaroyenko]

It would be considerably more simple if it was accurate.

I want valid reasons as to why it is not accurate.

 

[Zenith]

Yes, I do mean throttle response. On a 4 cylinder engine, turbo lag will be present (obviously).

Yes, indeed they do vary. But we're talking drastically smaller, so I think that has an affect.


I'm not lecturing people on physics. It started when SOMEBODY said that I have a "well-rounded taste in cars". Had that not been said, maybe this thread would be worthy.

VALID REASON: You are. You know obviously no nothing about the concept of rotating mass, nor the way engines are constructed.

Learn to realize that you're on a forum with people who have driven cars, built engines, and have an exponentially better understanding of this stuff than you do. All you have accomplished is confirming that you don't know what you're talking about and that your "strong opinions" are simply ignorant and baseless.

👎

 

[Camaroyenko]

VALID REASON: You are. You know obviously no nothing about the concept of rotating mass, nor the way engines are constructed.

Learn to realize that you're on a forum with people who have driven cars, built engines, and have an exponentially better understanding of this stuff than you do. All you have accomplished is confirming that you don't know what you're talking about and that your "strong opinions" are simply ignorant and baseless.

👎

I've rebuilt a couple engines in my day, and I WILL tear one apart and take pictures if I have to. I'm currently reading a book on Small Block Chevys, if you must know.




And I don't feel like getting banned, so I'm not even going to comment on that last part.


Kthanxbai.

 

[Tornado]

So is off-topic discussion only a problem when you don't need to get the last word in edgewise?

The reason for the turbocharged 4 cylinder is for fast response.

Except a turbocharged anything cannot have "fast response" compared to an NA anything. Especially not for a car from the early 1970s.

The ONLY advantages small engines have over big ones are response, and higher RPMs.

Exterior dimensions. And weight. And packaging concerns. And fuel efficiency (because if "they didn't give a crap about gas mileage back then" then the Vega wouldn't have existed in the first place).


Keep in mind that a SBC would absolutely fit into a Vega, and for almost certainly far less money than developing a turbocharging system for the hand grenade that was the Vega engine, so there was obviously a bit more to it than "it revs higher" and "it has better throttle response" (which it wouldn't anyway).

 

[Camaroyenko]

So is off-topic discussion only a problem when you don't need to get the last word in edgewise?



Except a turbocharged anything cannot have "fast response" compared to an NA anything. Especially not for a car from the early 1970s.


Exterior dimensions. And weight. And packaging concerns. And fuel efficiency (because if "they didn't give a crap about gas mileage back then" then the Vega wouldn't have existed in the first place).


Keep in mind that a SBC would absolutely fit into a Vega, and for almost certainly far less money than developing a turbocharging system for the hand grenade that was the Vega engine, so there was obviously a bit more to it than "it revs higher" and "it has better throttle response" (which it wouldn't anyway).

We're not talking about weight including the car, I just mean the weight of the internals. I will admit to it, I did screw myself on the gas mileage thing. I seemed to forget that that's WHY the Vega was invented. (By the way, Vegas are awesome )



Why wouldn't it have a higher redline? Just about any 4 cylinder will rev above 6k. Especially a turbocharged one.

 

[Cano]

The ONLY advantages small engines have over big ones are response, and higher RPMs.

So, lemme get this straight. Smaller turbo engines have better response than big-torquey V8s?

Uh, yeeeeeeeh...

 

[Luminis]

I've rebuilt a couple engines in my day, and I WILL tear one apart and take pictures if I have to. I'm currently reading a book on Small Block Chevys, if you must know.

And, let me guess, all of those engines were Chevy V8s with THEM CUBIC INCHES!!
Honestly, though, what you've written here so far doesn't show much knowledge, just a bunch of prejudices.

Why wouldn't it have a higher redline? Just about any 4 cylinder will rev above 6k. Especially a turbocharged one.

Why would it? After all, a V8's pistons don't need to have any more mass than an inline 4's (since that's what you're on about). Just take a peek at the E92 M3's engine. A v8 that revs fast, and pretty darn high, higher than, say, Nissan's two litre SR20DET inline four.

 

[Camaroyenko]

And, let me guess, all of those engines were Chevy V8s with THEM CUBIC INCHES!!
Honestly, though, what you've written here so far doesn't show much knowledge, just a bunch of prejudices.

I've rebuilt a 350, and I've also rebuilt a 13 CI lawnmower engine. And for the ones who think I don't know anything, I did the math to find the 13 cubic inches. I even have the formula memorized.

 

[Luminis]

I've rebuilt a 350, and I've also rebuilt a 13 CI lawnmower engine. And for the ones who think I don't know anything, I did the math to find the 13 cubic inches. I even have the formula memorized.

So, you know how to calculate the volume of an object. Big deal, that's sixth grade material over here.

There's a bit more when it comes to calculating how an actual engine works, though, and what determines its redline and how fast it can rev up. Just having more pistons and, thus, more total internal weight isn't all there is to it, you know.

 

[Camaroyenko]

So, you know how to calculate the volume of an object. Big deal, that's sixth grade material over here.

There's a bit more when it comes to calculating how an actual engine works, though, and what determines its redline and how fast it can rev up. Just having more pistons and, thus, more total internal weight isn't all there is to it, you know.

I used the formula bore x bore x stroke x .7854 x number of cylinders...


I do know that. There are less parts. Another big thing is valve springs. With less valve springs, it's less that the camshaft has to lift.

 

[savage388]

I think I'll just leave this here...

Yes, it's a 4-cylinder. And yes, it wore the Yenko name, the same name that's used in your forum name, Camaroyenko.

Seems even Don Yenko saw potential in economy cars with 4-cylinder engines.

You forgot that is is also ugly sounds like crap and is most likely slow. I like turbos and what not but gm just doesn't do a turbo four quite right, aside from the new 2.0l 260 horsepower one.

 

[Leonidae@MFT]

You forgot that is is also ugly sounds like crap and is most likely slow. I like turbos and what not but gm just doesn't do a turbo four quite right, aside from the new 2.0l 260 horsepower one.

And even that comes from this side of the pond.

 

[Camaroyenko]

You forgot that is is also ugly sounds like crap and is most likely slow. I like turbos and what not but gm just doesn't do a turbo four quite right, aside from the new 2.0l 260 horsepower one.

4 cylinders do sound like crap, but I think the Vega looks cool because it looks like the '70 Camaro

 

[AMCNUT]

4 cylinders do sound like crap, but I think the Vega looks because it looks like the '70 Camaro

Regardless of how much power a car has or how many cylinders are under the hood, gutless poser cars are not cool. 👎 I personally wouldn't want a car that looked like a 7/8th scale Camaro unless it performed like a 10/10th scale Camaro.

 

[Camaroyenko]

Regardless of how much power a car has or how many cylinders are under the hood, gutless poser cars are not cool. 👎 I personally wouldn't want a car that looked like a 7/8th scale Camaro unless it performed like a 10/10th scale Camaro.

Maybe you should watch this:


Throw a V8 under the hood of a Vega, that thing will scream due to the low car weight.

 

[savage388]

And even that comes from this side of the pond.

See what I mean? I am a gm fan but there are certain things American manufactures can't do.

4 cylinders do sound like crap, but I think the Vega looks cool because it looks like the '70 Camaro

Not all four cylinders sound like crap. A wrx sounds great as well as the 4g63.

Regardless of how much power a car has or how many cylinders are under the hood, gutless poser cars are not cool. 👎 I personally wouldn't want a car that looked like a 7/8th scale Camaro unless it performed like a 10/10th scale Camaro.

Posers always suck.👎

 

[Leonidae@MFT]

4 cylinders do sound like crap

If we follow that logic, V8 sounds twice as crap as its two banks of inline 4's on one crankshaft..

 

[Camaroyenko]

^^Yet you don't flame the guy who originally said it. Go figure.

 

[savage388]

^^Yet you don't flame the guy who originally said it. Go figure.

I never said they all do, but the majority dont sound good at all.

 

[Zenith]

Maybe you should watch this:


Throw a V8 under the hood of a Vega, that thing will scream due to the low car weight.

That has as much in common with a Vega as this does with a Toyota Camry...

 

[Cano]

That has as much in common with a Vega as this does with a Toyota Camry...

Indeed. Here is a better example:

http://www.hotrod.com/featuredvehicles/hrdp_1103_jeff_schwartz_1972_chevy_vega/

 

[Gil]

There are so any good engines out there it's hard to pick just three.
I love the sound of the Ford FE-series big block. And every one I've driven has put down a ton of power.

The Wankel Rotary. Revs to forever, makes a ton of power considering the size of the motor.

The flat 4 and flat 4 of VW and Porsche. All things considered, both hellaciously cool. Though for versatility, adaptability, and reliabilty my nod goes to the VW. It's been used in cars, boats, planes. It's been around for about three quarters of a century.

Chevy's first OHV V-8 was a technological break thru at the time, and it saved the Corvette.

Ford's Flat Head, Honda's VTEC, Toyota's 2JZ. Saab's 3 cylinder 2stroke motor, The Rotax, And I've not said anything about Mr. Diesel and his contributions.

Shall we also examine BMW's Boxer engine for Motorcycles?

How do you pick just three from that noble gathering, not to mention the awesome motors I've not mentioned....

 

[Tornado]

We're not talking about weight including the car, I just mean the weight of the internals.

So do I. Short of an industrial, iron-block-and-heads four cylinder or a turbodiesel, you'd be hard pressed to find an I4 that weighs more dressed than even the lightest of V8s. Or one that takes up as much space as the smallest of V8s. Especially when the Vega engine was aluminum block and heads and the V8s of the era were iron block and heads.

Yenko turbocharged the Vega engine probably for the same reason GM blew all that money commissioning the Cosworth Vega rather than just throwing in a SBC like they did with the Monza: It was a hell of a lot lighter and could be placed better in the engine bay, meaning it would be a better car across the board even if it was way more expensive. In fact, Yenko even made a kit that basically turned the Vega into the Monza, but that isn't the one that they attempted to sell as a specialized model like they did with the Vega Stinger.

Why wouldn't it have a higher redline? Just about any 4 cylinder will rev above 6k. Especially a turbocharged one.

Not an American 4 cylinder from the 1970s with high displacement and pathetic HP/L. Turbocharging usually requires max RPM to be lowered because the compression has to be lower. The Vega engine was a fairly large pig of an engine that GM constantly had to detune throughout its development to get it to pass emissions; and adding a turbocharger to that wouldn't change that.


I don't know what the compression was on the Yenko, but I doubt it was even as high as that on the Cosworth. I also don't know what the Vega redlined at (I know the Cosworth redlined at 7000), but I do know that the Turbo K engines Dodge made in the 1980s made very similar power with a slightly smaller engine and most of them didn't rev past 5800.

 

[savage388]

So do I. Short of an industrial, iron-block-and-heads four cylinder or a turbodiesel, you'd be hard pressed to find an I4 that weighs more dressed than even the lightest of V8s. Or one that takes up as much space as the smallest of V8s. Especially when the Vega engine was aluminum block and heads and the V8s of the era were iron block and heads.

Yenko turbocharged the Vega engine probably for the same reason GM blew all that money commissioning the Cosworth Vega rather than just throwing in a SBC like they did with the Monza: It was a hell of a lot lighter and could be placed better in the engine bay, meaning it would be a better car across the board even if it was way more expensive. In fact, Yenko even made a kit that basically turned the Vega into the Monza, but that isn't the one that they attempted to sell as a specialized model like they did with the Vega Stinger.

Not an American 4 cylinder from the 1970s with high displacement and pathetic HP/L. Turbocharging usually requires max RPM to be lowered because the compression has to be lower. The Vega engine was a fairly large pig of an engine that GM constantly had to detune throughout its development to get it to pass emissions; and adding a turbocharger to that wouldn't change that.

I don't know what the compression was on the Yenko, but I doubt it was even as high as that on the Cosworth. I also don't know what the Vega redlined at (I know the Cosworth redlined at 7000), but I do know that the Turbo K engines Dodge made in the 1980s made very similar power with a slightly smaller engine and most of them didn't rev past 5800.

With the turbo technology of the 70's slapping a turbo with lag that can be measured in days on a lump of crap pushrod 4cyl that made less than 100 horsepower before that turbo hardly made it a better all around car than a small v8 did. Sure it was a hundred or so pounds lighter but the drawbacks were huge all for slighted better gas mileage. All of the big three did similar things in the 70's and 80's . How about the mustang svo anyone? Yea that lasted. a vega with a small v8 is a better car and it was cheaper. The v8 has better response, more power, and is waaay more reliable. And I do guarantee that would rev past 5500 without it turning into a three cylinder or less

 

[Azuremen]

Because everyone's hating on me saying that I need to "educate" myself. That shows that I DO know what I'm talking about. Not to toot my horn, but I'm tired of getting handed all this crap, bub.

And also, I don't care what car a 4-cylinder may be in, I still don't like those engines. I like CUBIC INCHES....

You have no clue what you are talking about, from your overly simplified attempt to address the way inertia and rotating masses work, and showing off you most basic math skills. People that have studied engineering and physics are on this board; I'm one of them, you are just trying too hard to look smart.

So stop. And realize maybe some people know what they are talking about. Like how fast an engine can spin isn't really a function of displacement alone.

And bragging about rebuilding a few engines in your time (which isn't much, since you claim to be 13) isn't going to go far here either.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

In order:

Mazda 13b: race proven time and time again, a legend really. Absolutely butter smooth power delivery. N/A versions are all but unbustable. With all aluminun internals, 15,000rpm is possible. The sound is a bit of an acquired taste, but the noise is very multi-layered, a high frequency vibrato-like rhythm rather than the pounding bass a piston engine produces; I'm speaking mainly of induction noise of course.

Mazda 20b, R26B: More of the same...just more of it. So far away from most realistic budgets though.

BMW I6: Sound, torque, refinement, durability. The BMW straight sixes are my favorite piston engines probably.

BMW V12: Fairly rare specimen, but more of the same as the straight 6 engines.

Honda Vtec: The engine that made me fall in love with normally aspirated engines. A friend of mine had a Honda civic with a breathed on B16A Si-R engine in it. He punched it in 3rd from low revs and I was sorely disappointed...at first. But then as the revs piled on, the pace quickened and quickened. And it just kept pulling and pulling. I thought it would never stop revving out. Straight through to 9,200rpm. I was in love. So much so that I actually bought the car later on. Best car I ever owned probably.

Ford Small block: Can't say they are particularly brilliant in any way; they aren't particularly smooth, and not very much set up for racing as stock... But they are full of character, sound great, and can make some pretty spectacular power.