Another Ridiculous HP Comparison 6 to V8

[Anonymous]

An Australian wheels road test in 1971 on a Falcon 500 GS pack 351 rated at 250 HP at 4600 managed an average of 15.9 quarter mlie times.
A 250 2V rated at 170 HP at 4600 tested by Aussie wheels mag in Sept 1971 in same car managed 16.9 average. both cars were manual 4 speeds, the 351 had a 3.00 final drive and the 250 2v had 2.92.
Only 1 second difference for a rated 80 HP difference. The standard log head six rated at 155 hp in the same car averaged 18.3 sec quarter mile times by Wheels mag in Jan 1971.

Conclusion, if the ratings are to be taken seriously (should not be) then a 1.4 second difference equals 15 HP difference between the standard 250 and the 250 2V and a 1 second difference between the 250 2V and the 351 would equal 80 HP.
I wonder what would happen to the times if the six were made into a 351 ci six and the 351 V8 made into a 4.1 V8. Thats right, there would be a much more than a one second difference between them. I suspect the six would flog it even if it were the same size.
Examples of similar six quarter mile times compared to a V8s can be given, many times a changing. Draw youre own conclusions?

 

[CobraSix]

Tim,

One thing to remember is the weight difference between the 2. THere is probably a couple hundred pound difference between the two. That will account for some of the difference.

Slade

 

[xctasy]

I feel that Jack was right on the money that the sixes were either de-rated advertised HP, or that the V8's were over cooked.

NB// All pre 1976 engines were rated as gross flywheel power, not SAE net. The technical difference is 16.7%, with the gross optimistic.

Remember how a 1972 2-bbl Bendix Stromberg WW was the same carb on both the 2V 302 Cleveland, and the 2V 250 I6. Adverstised power difference 207 minus 170 was 37 hp. But the same spec cars had No difference in performance, with about 17 seconds flat for the standing quarter mile. Why? Answer: Ford Australia lied

1972, the 2-barrel , 2V headed 302 Cleveland was 207 hp. The 2V 2-barrel 351 was 250 hp. (The dual exhast gave an undisclosed increase on all GT's and GSFalcons so equiped). The 4-barrel 2v headed 351 was 290 hp. The base non RPO 083 351 GT was 300 hp. The RPO 083 was an undisclosed horsepower option with deceased 351 4V HO gear. Quarter miles were 17, 15.9, 15.9, 15.8, and 15.2 seconds repspectively. Some guys ran cars two up, and the 9 inch diff added about 60 pounds to the weight of any 351 Ford. But the deal is there was a huge difference between the 302 and 351 engines, more than 43 hp. My guess is the 302 should have been 185 hp, the 351 2-barrel base engine 225 hp, the 351 4-barrel 2V 260 hp, and the 351GT 275 HP. An RPO 083 was a 300 hp gross engine

1971 Chrysler 265 Hemi Six. 185 hp or 205 hp. Roughly the same 16.7 sec quarter. Power difference 45 to 25 hp. As a 230 hp 318 V8, with the same Carter 2-barrel carb, was slower over the quarter. Why? Answer: Chrysler Australia lied

The XE Falcon came out in 1982 with a 141 hp Weber ADM 34/34 carb. When the Ford EFI version was released, the carby engine was de-rated 10 hp. The EFI ran 149 hp. An 8 hp boost, or was it more than 18 hp. Why?Answer: Ford Australia lied


1983 Ford Falcon 4.1 EFI cross flow. 149 hp, verses Ford Falcon 4.9 Cleveland 4-barrel Carter Thermoquad 9800. 188 hp. The advantage to the Cleveland of 39 hp, which was only 40 pounds heavier than the EFI x-flow. Why did the EFI do 16.9 seconds, and the V8 17.3 seconds. Why?Answer: Ford Australia lied

1983 XE Falcon 4.9. 17.3 second quarter mile with 188 hp Falcon 4.9. 15.8 second quarter mile 200 hp 1979 XD Falcon 5.8. Difference in power 12 hp. Difference in quarter mile time is indicative of a 40 hp advantage to the 5.8 liter engine which shares the same exhast, carb, ignition, pistons, headers, and intake manifold. Only the rods, crank and heads (both still 2V) were different between the two engines. Why?Answer: Ford Australia lied

V8 DIE-HARDS should back the V8 to the hilt if you wish. But I'll stick with the team that doesn't have to bend the truth to win sales and has a performance to be proud of...a Ford Six-in-liner!

Winners can smile, loosers can please themselves!

 

[Anlushac11]

An Australian wheels road test in 1971 on a Falcon 500 GS pack 351 rated at 250 HP at 4600 managed an average of 15.9 quarter mlie times.
A 250 2V rated at 170 HP at 4600 tested by Aussie wheels mag in Sept 1971 in same car managed 16.9 average. both cars were manual 4 speeds, the 351 had a 3.00 final drive and the 250 2v had 2.92.
Only 1 second difference for a rated 80 HP difference. The standard log head six rated at 155 hp in the same car averaged 18.3 sec quarter mile times by Wheels mag in Jan 1971.

Conclusion, if the ratings are to be taken seriously (should not be) then a 1.4 second difference equals 15 HP difference between the standard 250 and the 250 2V and a 1 second difference between the 250 2V and the 351 would equal 80 HP.
I wonder what would happen to the times if the six were made into a 351 ci six and the 351 V8 made into a 4.1 V8. Thats right, there would be a much more than a one second difference between them. I suspect the six would flog it even if it were the same size.
Examples of similar six quarter mile times compared to a V8s can be given, many times a changing. Draw youre own conclusions?

My only problem is that in drag racing there are so many variables that can affect those times.

The I6 might have been quick out of the hole and ran out of power later down the strip.

The V8 might have had traction problems getting off the line

I think the breathing of the log head has a bit to do with the slower times also. Once it reaches about 4500rpm its just along for the ride. Especially without a high flow exhaust or any other mods.

 

[Anonymous]

Hey I Love this, its great stuff. I have no doupt you can back your claims from previous posts on the forum and from my own research on the subject. I have no trouble in believing any of it.
As for the weight difference of a couple of hundred pounds. The test page states a difference of only 68 lb. 3003 and 3070lb for the 351.
I could keep going on and on with examples but there seems little point.

Perhaps the question to be asked is why did Ford and others do this. One reason is simple. That V8s were always going to equal power in most peoples minds is true, simply because a V8 is a good way of Fitting a lot of cubes into a smaller square shaped engine bay with an engine that has two banks of four cylinders side by side.
It is often the case that cubes equals power. It was once more excepted as the standard than it is now.
Having said that if bigger and bigger sixes had been made instead of V8s with equivalent sizes and similar add ons and the engine bays were made to suit. The sixes would be quicker by a considerable margin.
I cant tell you why. But all the facts are there to support this.
All it gets down to is practicality and whats the easiest way of get bigger cubes in. Thats were the benchmark was set way back when it all started and all the inflated figures began from there and from various companies not wanting to lose sales to there opponents V8 power ratings.
Only the other day I had a Tilford Salesman I know tell me that the new BA Turbo six was deliberately de-rated for fear that it would eat into its Ford V8 sales. This is inpite of the fact that people would make big allowances for the fact that the six is a turbo and it could hardly be said that it would make the normally aspirated V8 look bad by comparison.
Same old story, different time. No one wants a six to go quicker than a V8.
I suspect no one wants to be accused of making a "big" engine that really isnt up to its reputation.
Im fairly new to all of this and Im pretty discusted with some of the widely publised ratings given by companies to consumers who trust they are getting exactly (by accurate comparison at least) what they paid for.
The Inliner Six Forum on an inside secret.
Cheers to all you Inliners.

 

[Anonymous]

I agree there are lots of variables. And it just possible that Im way off the mark with all of this. But I do not think its likely. At some point after going through all the comparisons and taking into account that the times themselves were averages I have to come to a conclusion.
Im sure If we compiled all the information thats been posted just on this forum checked it out as best we could and averaged the findings we would build very strong case "all things being equal" (size ect) for the six being a better engine for on the road performance.

 

[xctasy]

Well dudes, why did I not take this to the hardcore session. Tim, you've baited me again, you knew what you were dialling up when you posted this thread, didn't you?

It's like my tongue found a filling, and I just gotta go through the typical xecute drill of verbal diaoreha (That's d-i-a-r-r-h-o-e-a). Somebody Stop Me. Uggghhh!


I think the closeness of sixes in performance to V8 vehicles with upwards of 20% capacity in hand can be proven mathematically by following up on this arguements. The following is something for a mechanical engineer to prove/disprove.

My belief that the net rate of movement of a six cylinder crank at maximum torque is at a faster rate initially than any V8 engine. Even if that engine is bigger. The reason why is four fold.

1, There is no physical or harmonic or exhast pulse or intake gas flow stalling with a six when it is near peak torque, while a V8 is busy turning the counter weighed crank to tame rough firing pulses. This is based purely on the amount of energy consumed balancing a 90 degree V8 with a crank sharing its rod journals with opposite cylinders. A Ferrari -style flat 180 degree four cylinder style crank always improves power and torque for an optimised case for case dyno test. The smoothness the customer needs costs the mass produced US V8 its potential vitality. The 90 degree crank is screwing up the intake, exhast and power delivery so that the V8 punters here won't moan about bad vibrations!

2.Gas flow is through sixteen restrictive flow sources in and out rather than twelve, and this results in more proportional wetted area for the intake and exhast gasese to flow against. There is the extra friction, the scavanging of pulses from some cylinders in the intake on some pre mid 1980's V8's.

3. There is a tendancy for all larger displacement engines to turn at a lower rate of rpm because this helps reduce fuel consumption , noise, friction, results in less material costs on lower grade valves, recipricating components, timing chain or gear drives, softer ramps and lower camshaft intensities. The specific power of the base V8 engines on a carb area verses cubic inches capacity basis is much lower than on a six cylinder engines. This is a simple fact of the four-fold increase in recipricating mass when twice the capacity is prodced.

4. Six cylinder engines are often poorer off in terms of rod length to stroke ratio, and this , along with poorer carburation ( in most cases, not with 250 2V's and 2-bbl 265 Hemis) makes the smaller sixes tail off at the top end, while having good initial intensity out of the starter blocks.

Oh, and CobraSix picked up on a real good point about weight. On US Falcons and Mustangs, he's dead right. But six cylinder Aussie Falcons and Valiants usally ran the same running gear (brakes, axles, wheel stud and tire sizes) as there bigger eight banger stablemates. The 250 and 302's were about about 68 pounds different because the 2V was lighter than a 250 log, and the 302 ran a cast iron intake manifold. The alloy intaked 351C 4V was around 595 pounds installed, the 302C about 610 pounds due to the iron intake. So 68 pounds difference wasn't a lie. Add a power streering box, a 9 inch disc-braked diff, air conditioning and even the 351 really suffered under another 550 pounds of weight. Its just that a 351 was a really well matched engine compared to a 302 or even 318. Same can be siad of 340 and 360's. Smaller V8's like Chevy 283's suffred compared to 327's. Simple fact that the six in-liners expolited the fact that smaller v8's were never at there best dynamically.

A final sum up of small capacity large cylinder number engines being deap sixed by smaller engines with less cylinders reads like an epitah.

Where is the 1980 255 Fairmont / Mustang 4.2 liter engine. Died. 3.8 liter V6 killed it! 125 pounds lighter, just as powerful, and much more economical.

Where is the Holden 253 V8? Died. The 25 pounds lighter EFI 202 Holden six-in line killed it. More power, better fuel consumption.

Where is the 267/262 SB Che*y. Dead. Killed off by 229,231 and 262 cube vee-sixes, sometimes 110 pounds lighter and just as powerful.

Where is the 273 LA Chrylser? Dead. Killed of by the superb low end torque of the 225 slant six, an engine inferior in peak power by sometimes hundreds of horsepower!

Wheres the 215 V8 Buick in the 'States today?. Yeah, alloy construction killed its production in the US when Fords SB Windsor 221 came out, but even the 196/225 Buick V6 of 1962 killed the small V8 engine interms of power potential. Rovers sixes were so heavy and poorly developed that the US 215 (now 240 cube) survives even today. But a cast iron 231 GM 3800, based on the 215 V8 block, kills it dead for fuel efficiency and performance.

I could go about a 300 I6 verses 302 Windsor, but in need to take some :chill: :chill: :chill: :chill: :chill: :chill:

Six in row, and a little water injection to wash it down. Thanks for reading this!

 

[Anonymous]

Sounds conclusive to me. I wouldnt dare argue with you.
Just wondering though. That little Holden 4.2 litre V8 some have said it was the most powerful V8 for its size at the time. Holden rated a bit higher in power than the 250 2V when it came into production. Do you know of any times or power comparisons for it. Or were even those figures inflated.

A quotable quote, Knowledge is Power.
Thanks for your posts.
Regards.

 

[xctasy]

Yes I do. The V8 powered 253 SS 1971 Holden ran 16.8's quarters weighing in close to the 72 Falcon 2V 250. The Holden had a poor gearbox, with nasty ratios, unlike the Top loader equiped Ford. With a better second gear, there would have been a sub 16.6, I'm sure. Based on these facts, I think both cars were really the same HP at about 150 net.

The 253 was equiped with the same 2-bbl type of carb as the Falcon, and the engine was rated 15 gross ponies higher than the Falcon 2V. 185 vs 170 hp. And the 185 hp figure may have been the gross rating with no exhast, so it's hard to know if the dual pipes the SS came with was a solid gold increase on that figure or not. The Falcon just had to silly 1.875" ID pipe, while the SS had two 1.875 pipes!

The 2-bbl Holden V8 was a badly matched engine with poor intake manifolding compared to the later 4-bbl Quadrajet 4.2's of the post 1980 era. And any engine with the dual exhast system showed a huge gain in hp, even though Holden never disclosed its advantage until the 1978 Commodre V8, where they quoted a 12 to 14 hp net increase with duals. But a 253 has eight huge 1.78 inch vlaves with small 3.625 inch bores, long 5.622 inch rods, and a short 3.0625 inch stroke which made up for the shortcommings. And the intkae ports were nicely sized for 253 cubes. Early v8's had no retard on the cam, good timing chains, and quite agressive spark in and engine with good compression. The later emission engines got the 4MC Q'jet, HEI ignition and even with egr and retarded timing, the SS Commodores did easy 16.7s all day at the drags (147 hp net with dual exhast, only 3 hp down on the sigle exhast 308/5.0 base engine). These cars weighed in at the slighly less than than the HQ Holden.

It must be said that the 253 is super-responsive to the right gear. Street Machine found 335 hp hiding in the valley of its test 253 five years ago, and it was still streetable. The spin-off from Forumla 5000, L34, A9X and A9L engine technology (heads and cams, primarily) has resulted in Commodore Challenge racing 253's giving well over the 290 hp net in a very streetable engine with a 465 cfm 4-bbl Holley carb. A 250 2V would be hard pressed to get the same figures because no-one has tapped into the combustion chamber design yet. The plugs, valve and port angles need to have some scientific flow bench and pyrometer work to see how to unlock that kind of grunt. In Australia, people have tended to go cross-flow alloy head or even Hem 265 when a six is to haul.

More personal bablings:-

My thinking is a worked 2V Falcon six should be heaps better flow than a ported Bathust 12000 (XU1-based) head. There isn't the nasty 90 degree bends or restricted port sizes. I'd say a 2v would respond to the port spliters like those used in 2.8 Chevy six because I think the intake ports are too big. Adopting Dave Vizards apple port intake design on the SOHC Pinto engine your Cortina first came out with was a major power booster. Up until the first new Ford sixes of 1976 (the cross flow 4.1) and the 1981 90 degree 3.8 V6 (Lincoln), Ford used to go overboard in port area. Cleveland 4V heads were a classic case in point. Filling up the area in the base of the intake port to bias flow in over the short turn radius is a key element that this head lacks. The exhast is fairly good. The guides are ample in size, so going to a better quality non-intrusive guide, and the post 1978 US spec valve sizes should wake up this engine.

Since any 250 I6 is a cheap pick-up almost anywhere, money spent on gas flowing the 250 2V head, along with a proper cam and exhast system would scare any V8 the same size. With 245 hp residing in plenty of worked 202 Holden engines, a Falcon 250 should hit the 290 barrier without killing the drivability too much

 

[xctasy]

Tim, Anlushac11, CobraSix. This shifted post is one for the X-files.

Hey, this is like, wierd. This post started in the FSP forum, and has been transferred by some bizzare force to the hardcore session. Hmmmm. Methinks the force is the same one that edited my post above, and put the following words in that are in red here.

"It's like my tongue found a filling, and I just gotta go through the typical xecute drill of verbal diaoreha (That's d-i-a-r-r-h-o-e-a).Somebody Stop Me. Uggghhh!"

That wasn't me. I cant speel four shut

Any way, thanks unspoken web administrator. You good work has not gone un-noticed.

I didn't move it.

Now, is there anyone here who can add something that dosen't sound like you've swallowed a defective dictionary (like me?)

 

[xctasy]

Tim, you got me side tracked in the most delightfull way possible. I started going over old issues of car mags, and try to debug acceleration figures from given power figures. It was a bit of a mission at first, but then things started falling into place....
I just spent the whole weekend going over ancient Wheels magazine car reports of all sorts of vehicles(1972 to 1990).The cars were tested at one drag strip for 10 years, and timed by the same guy each time. The graphs of accleration are similar to the US Car and Driver publication, and the test method has always been to travel with two big Aussies, one driving, and one measuring, along with between half and a full tank of gas. I've used this as a basis for working through the standing quarter mile accleration (from 0 to 1320 ft), along with values of 60, 330, 660 foot times (1/8 mile). I've also tied it in with the top speed and the total length of road required to achieve this.
The sum up is that I've debugged how a given power/torque curve relates to a given quarter mile time, and indeed all the mph increments. Now I know how the Quarter Jr program works. It's simple physics, but I've applied it to real world figures using a number of methods, and am sure I've got it nailed!
There is up to a 5 mph discrepancy for the 1/4 mile terminal speed. And the 1/8 mile is an estimate, but the data is only based on five cars at present. It will only get better. And I'm just converting all the figures to good ole US Imperial so we can have a face -off of torque and power data verses actual results!
Virtual Drag Racing Simulator, here we come!

 

[Anonymous]

In reply to the BA XR6Turbo engines being restricted to not embarrass the BOSS 5.4l V8's consider this independant dyno graph published some time ago in Street Machine.

Identical peak power at the wheels but the red curve has more area under the curve, look at the torque lines. See where the engine management system cuts in to limit the torque being produced on the six. Oh, yes, the red line is the turbo 6 (rated at 240kW, 450Nm) while the blue is the BOSS 260 (rated at 260kW and 500Nm). Yeah right!

And all this at a lowly boost of only up to 6psi, which is where the torque peaks then the electronic wastegate bleeds off boost to limit the torque being produced - probably a good thing for the gearbox.

 

[xctasy]

Loved the artical

Funny how turbos often show more hp loss than a naturally aspirated engine in dyno situations where there is never enough wind rush to simulate real road conditions. Where's the 50 killer whats ( 67 hp!!!) gone, Mr Ford, and what happens when a Boss 290 comes with a weight penalty?. Answer? The turbo is quicker!

This looks like an expensive way to buy a stronger Tremec gearbox that the V8 comes with.

Aussie six cylinder grunt, leading the world!

z:

 

[Anonymous]

another example of the i6 being superior....

in 1992 wheels car magazine rand the then new eb-xr6 (rated at 161kw in a fairly mild state of tune (just larger exhaust valves and a slightly more agressive cam and a ecu re-tune)
the eb xr6 ran a time of 15.7 sec over the quater (1540 kg car)

the eb xr8 ran a time of 15.9 sec pass (rated at 165 kw)

even then the ea falcon which was rated at 139kw and they ran 15.8 sec pass (all times were for a manual car)

another interesting point was that the eb xr6 was the fastest australian production car at the time..... faster then the lighter commodore v8 which was also rated at 165kw go figure!!

LONG LIVE THE FORD I6!!!!!

cheers.joe.

 

[xctasy]

What makes me laugh is that the very first hot SOHC six, the 1989 SVO Falcon with just the stock engine and extractors, did 15.8 sec quarters all day with the awfull BW 3-stage auto. The SV 3800 was a bout the same. The Falcon was 100 kg's heavier and had only 7 kw more power.

 

[Anonymous]

yes that does make me lmfao as well also cos of the fact the commo had the more favorable 4 spd auto and shorter diff gears.

i've always had a theory that holden over-rate their power and ford always underated

cheer.joe.

 

[xctasy]

gm dstroya said

i've always had a theory that holden over-rate their power and ford always underated

That is the truth now. Ford is fugeding the six, to make the eight look good. Back in 72, it was puffing up the V8 figures so the six looked lower!Back in 78, Holden was still claiming SAE gross readings, and it's easy to see why Ford claimed their 4.9 Clevelands had 188 hp, when Holden was claiming 207 hp gross. Then the 5.8 was sitting on 216 hp. When the engery crunch hit in 79/80, the 200 hp looked real sick against the 252 SAE net that SS Commodore kicked out. Then the EFI XF doing 162 hp and 16.4 second quarters, verses the same for the guttless VK stock 5.0 Holden V8, in a car 100 kilos (221 lbs) lighter.

But the Americans started it. A '79 302 Mustang, 15.9 seconds with 140 hp. A heavier '82 2-BBL HO Mustang with only 157 hp, doing a 16 second flat quarter mile. Blue printed, high 15 seconds. The 188 hp TBI 305 Camaro, T-bird, or 190 hp 307 Hurst Olds Cuttless, couldn't break 17 seconds. Net readings, fugded.

Fudge Dread!

 

[Anonymous]

If a 302 GT V8 is only .7 of a second quicker over the quarter than a 250 2V or an Alloy head carbed crossflow (it is). I ask then, Is it worthwhile going to a four barrel carb higher compression like the GT had for the 250 2V which only came with a small 2 barrel carb?
The "standard 302" which came with the same two barrel carb as the 2V not the four barrel as on the GT, did exactly the same quarter mile times as the 250 2V according to Executes information.
This plus the bigger cubes of the V8 only amounted to a .7 of a second difference in the GT.
"Pretty pathetic" for the V8s bigger reputation I reckon. The performance parts would probably work better and be more worthwhile on the smaller 6 rather than the V8 contrary to much popular opinion.
I nearly swallowed all the rubbish once and nearly went to the expense of putting a V8 in place of my six with lots of mods needed to do so feeling sure I would have gained lots of power (probably may have gained a bit of smoothness but who cares $).
I would have been very upset if I have done so and then read the stuff on this forum. Then again if I had a V8 and no six I probably would not have read it anyway and found out one day when I got blown away by a six off the mark. I would have been very unimpressed.
Someone once told me that the 2V was ceased from continued production because it used too much fuel compaired to the 302 this also I believe, is simply not true!
To all Inliners on an inside secret.
Cheers

 

[xctasy]

What follows, Tim, isn't a six knocking session. Just my experiences.

Bob Pernelli of Cortina and Capri V8, which I think was in Sydney, did heaps of conversions from TC/TD/TE/TF Cortina 6 to Windsor V8's. He's on record for saying a C4+289/302 is lighter than a six by a few kilos. When rigged with a Toploader and 9", a 302 Cortina is the same or heavier than an XY 302 Windor and BW 78 equiped 71 Falcon, at 1320 kg. The centre of gravity of a V8 is lower, and further back than any six, and the engine is normally, with an alloy intake, hovering in about 10 kg less than an Alloy Head 4.1, and over 60 kgs lighter than the really heavy cross-flow (cast iron) and about 50 kg's lighter than the log headed 250.

As for potential, well, the V8 has the $$$/performance edge if you buy a good second hand one. A 225 hp EFI 5.0 with a C9 can be done very cheaply, but you have to be ultra organised and have some smarts. But 40 years of race inspired development means V8's will always have parts that you can bolt in, and get huge performance gains...possibly bigger than any six. A 220hp 5.0 is heaps less stressed than a 220 HP OHC XR6, and the mods that gave you 20 hp on the stock 199 hp OHC Falcon would give 40 hp on a Windsor.

But what actually happens is some geek looks at Street Machne, Hot Rod, or Performance Street Car and gets all sorts of evil ideas that cost money. Suddenly a perfectly good BW 78 will do wheelstands gets biffed for a 9", some one wants a manual, then dual exhasts, then extractors, then a bigger radiator, then 16 inch Simmonds mags, then wants it lowered, then frame connectors, then a cam, then a GT40 intake....it's a viscous cycle! Then, just when its going halfway right, the routine maintenance intrudes, the car gets canaried with a defect, and the enginerers certificate takes another six months and one grand of alterations and then the misses says...either it goes, or me.

I have a lot of close V8 friends whose car has won that battle. (The V8 strain thing is much more virulent in Kiwiland , Tassie and Aussie than in the States. These guys are pretty staunch)

With sixes, guys never get into there engine. They worry about if a four barrel is worth the kids going without lunch (that's you at the moment, but I've been there too), and if extractors and a hi-flo air cleaner are going to be worth it. Then the normal cost of routine manitenance intrudes. So the hopping up process is always at a slower rate, and less focussed on total street warefare like the V8 guys. And there isn't the gear that just falls on your lap like that set of factory roller rockers, or the stroker crank, pistons and rods you can buy from your Ford dealer to make that 302 a 342 in one go. And six-cylinder guys never swap rods, heads or cams unless they are freeks. Weve only got about 100 guys here who qualify as freeks, because you don't see 200 cube Mustangs with 2V's and big carbs like AZCoupe, Mustangaroo, Kstang etc.

But a six with the right mods is a screamer, in a way that no V8 can ever be. A V8 looses streetability real fast with each modification, while a six just laps it up with no problem. And day in, day out, a six is easier to live with. When things go wrong, the bits can get stripped down like a big mechano set.

Now Tim, all we have to do is get your misses wanting to drive your Cortina intead of the AU!

 

[goinbroke2]

Longer rods of an inline six actually help high rpm because of piston dwell time...but;
you can pat your own back and convince yourself anything if you try hard enough.
Six's make torque, but have limitation to high rpm, and hp is just a math calculation based on rpm.
except for crossflow heads, six heads suck, because they're running all the ports out one side.
Cubic inches are limited, and no matter what you say, cubic inches rule,period.
You say you can put on a turbo/blower/nitrous/blah blah blah, well so can a guy with a v8.

As far as old car test? You can read 5 different stories on the same car and get 5 different times. Superstock and drag illustrated had the best times because they had a drag racer do the driving. Road & Track and that other equally pathetic euro trash rag Car & Driver always had the worst times because the geeks were into eurotrash slalom type racing, and wouldn't know a shift point if they had shift light set for them!!

Bottom line is yes 6's are cool and can put out good power, and you can do them up quite well. But to think there is a big conspiracy going on against inline six cylinders?!?!?! Come on!
The Grand National was tamed and eventually cut because it smoked the flagship corvette. Business decision, corvette has to be on top.
Do you think if a 83 fairmont with a trailer package (low rear gear/tranny cooler/etc) with a 302HO would have been allowed to have been faster than a 302HO mustang? NO! Common sense says so.

The bare bones econo car (any brand) will always be lighter(potentially faster) than the GT or GS or whatever you want to call the top of the line. In 86 I tried to buy a new lx mustang with the gt drivetrain. Even had the part # to order in my hotrod mag and the dealer said no,long story short I bought a GT. But the lx was a couple tenths quicker.

Six's are in the econo cars, econo cars can't be better/faster/quicker than the flagship they are trying to promote as their "fast" car. So the "six" is knocked down.

Nothing wrong with six's but they don't and won't compete with 8's on the strip....nah that's not worded right. How about looking at it this way, same cubes, a v6 will wind higher and put out more horsepower than a straight 6, but an inliner will out torque the v6,have better rod/stroke ratio,longer stroke and smaller bore, and have a poorer flowing head.

Besides, if 6's were the end all and be all, ol' henry wouldn't of built the flathead that stomped all the bigger sixes at the time!

Not to burst any bubbles, just bring the pro six feeding frenzy back to earth!