Another Ridiculous HP Comparison 6 to V8

[Anonymous]

The engine layout has very little to do with how much power it makes. An inline engine doesn't make it more torquey than a V motor. A V doesn't rev any easier or harder than an inline engine. Engine layout also doesn't dictate a high or low rod ratio. The manufacturer sets all these things. There are plenty of inlines that love to rev and there are plenty of V motors that don't.

Hell, i've got an oversquare inline that has a pretty-damn-poor rod ratio and is out-torqued by the V6 in my mothers car. One thing an engine layout does have a large say in is vibration. Lets here it for the smoove L6....


-=Whittey=-

 

[Anonymous]

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!

When the ford 8 came out in '32 it was 221 cubes and '65 Hp, the Chevy 6 was 195 cubes and 46 hp. By 1937 they both put out 80-85 hp and the 6 got better economy. By the last flathead 8 in '53 it was making 100 hp with 255 cubes and the 235-6 was at 150

These are all stock numbers, as they would have come off the line.

Justin

 

[Anonymous]

So many arguments, so many variables. I dont expect ever to have the final word on any of it but the road tests I have, all "consistantly" say the same and put the six in a very good light compaired to its bigger V8 brothers.
For 23 years since 1970 the 250 six has just been behind and often in front of the V8 for performance on the road. Even with is poor rod ratio and long 4 inch stroke. Its as simple as that. No conspiracy here at all, just the facts.
When talking of highly modified versions there is no rule of consistancy on which to make a reasonable comparison.

 

[Anonymous]

33 years

 

[Anonymous]

Execute
My 302 V8 into the Cortina conversion would have cost $220 for the kit plus 175 for the water pump adapter 40 to 220 for the water pump, 450 for extractors (special to fit conversion) 200 for extra exhaust and about 150 to 200 for new cables and 50 for postage. Total=1250 plus Thats not with fitting a C4 auto as I believe the manual can be a problem (something to do with clutch?) with the 302 in a Cortina (maybe stage two kit re-build needed)
As the standard 302 and the 250 six (not log head) have been shown to do the same quarter mile times (some times slightly better or worse) time and time again. I have since concluded the extra money I saved in not going to the 302 could go into mods for the six.
In which case (If I had done it right, bit hotter cam) the six would be substantually quicker than a standard 302.
Thanks for pointing out that the 302 would respond better to mods I was not sure although I did suspect this might be the case. What I did not realise when I started my project is that the standard 302 gave same performance on road as 250. This would have made any gains for me negated by the cost and is something I did not know as Im am sure many do not.
A couple of years ago when I got it as a four cylinder I had no idea what was involved to make it a six (or any idea about cars at all really). I bought and 4 speed 77 TE to do it. No one told me the manual single rail wont go in a auto four and bolt right up and the clutch cable kept melting on the header of the 2V six (melted and ceased the original plus one handmade new one before I got it right). The brake booster hit the big 2V manifold and was cut shorter to clear it (the rod is still welded in middle Im still not sure about this) I could keep going but Ill stop there.
While doing this my mate who was attemting to get a V8 in his eventually after a lot of trouble got it right but then abandoned the whole project half way through and put the six back in. He still wants an eight in his but I think he should stick with what hes got.
Just some food for thought. Cheers Tim

 

[xctasy]

I had the option on a British TE Cortina, steel case 5-speded. 8" Mustang II diff, 302 Windsor and 235.50 13. List price NZ$2200, sold for NZ$1800. My British TF with V6 Cologne V6 cost me a small fortune in comparison. My Falcon XE is dirt cheap.

Whatever the issues over horsepower, I know sixes produce better low-end torque on a cube for cube basis compared to any similar sized V8 or V12. You don't get long stroke V8's (except if you have a BMW), and all of them produce less low end torque than a 250 six, if carburation, capacity and relative bore to valve sizes are the same.

I've just re-checked the 253 Holden SS drive report, tested by the same tester as the guy who tested the 302 and 250 Fords. Wheels magazine had very consistant tests on the same drag strip form 1971 until 1983...the Castleregh Drag strip. Conclusively, an average of 17 second 1/4 mile, not 16.8 seconds as I'd stated earlier. And it was slower off line, even with a shallower overall first gear.

Dynamically, the 250 is different. Yes Ford designed it that way, but even Fords own 255 V8's paled in the low end torque by comparison. With equal carburation and the same percentage of valve area, a six is always quicker than a V8.

 

[Anonymous]

What confuses me a little is that if the V8 responds better to mods (which I believe it does) then that the 302 GT Windsor Mustang engine in the same car and all its other add on performance additions should have been a bit quicker than only point seven of a second quicker. Im probably baseing too much on this.
I would have doupted the time difference in the test but it corresponds well with others that claim much biggfer HP difference but only a small difference in times. Maybe a lot of extra HP doesnt effect the time as much as I think. Still 16.9 for 250 2V and 16.3 for the 230 hp rated four barrel higher comp bigger engine doesnt seem like much gain for all that.

 

[Anonymous]

Oh I nearly forgot, the GT had a hotter cam as well.

 

[xctasy]

Any increase in hp has to be used in conjunction with the right diff ratio. Unless you have a four speed auto or five speed manual, you can't gear your car for a 14 second quarter and still get a 150 mph top speed.

The six pack chargers did 14.4 second quarters with 306 hp gross, up from ~ 215 hp gross with 16.4 second quarters on the stock 265 2-bbl. The diff ratio was 3.5 on the hi-po, and 2.92:1 on the base models.

Ford V8's, the first 302's XTGT's were not even 16.3 second brakers with the 4V 230 Mustang based 302. There was most likely 150 flywheel Hp here. The XR8 S Falcon's saw 15.6 second quarter miles with 175 reap wheel hp, 222 quoted. But the hop-up kits, like the Falcon Sprint XR8 by Tickford in 1993, was little better, even with 248 hp. The 220 Rebel, 250 T3 and such were always saddled with more weight than the old XT GT. Think how fast an XT GT, weighing in at about 3200 lbs, would be with the 340 hp 5.6 T3 250 stroker engine, with 500 lb's less to haul around.

If its apples with apples, I'd bet a good V8 would always loose out to a good six for the first 20 m (60 feet) in any race. With the right gearing, any modifaction on a V8 will give a lot more power than a six, but you won't see it off line as much as you will at 100 mph onwards.

Rember the quote from John Wright in 1982 when comparing the 4.3L E49 Valiant Charger with the 5.8 L GTHO Falcon Phase III.

"It was only at sppeds above 100 mph that you noticed the affect of two extra cylinders and 1.5 litres of extra capacity"

The six was quicker by 0.3 seconds over the quater mile, and only 12 mph slower than the 351 Falcon GTHO.

There is a pattern here, it's not blind six cylinder reading into things, its fact! On the streets, sixes can rule!

 

[Anonymous]

I have to ask what was wrong with the 302 XT GT if it only produced 150 flywheel power (bad heads)?
Just thinking also that a lot of the distance covered from 0-30 or 40 mph is covered while in the lower to mid rpm range. I guess this is were a lot of sixes get the jump. Just thinking about this I agree it doesnt really make sence to cam a six up too much unless the diff is changed as well.
I went test driving cars at the car yards with a mate the other day and I could not help thinking everything I drove felt a bit gutless and weak off the mark, this is because I am now too used to driving the Cortina 6.
Power up high in the rpm is only usefully when you get there and the precious seconds it takes to do so from a standing start are not always easily regained at the higher RPMs. If speed signs do not present a restriction then maybe the rule changes.
Some of the new big sport saloons with an auto dont change out of 1st until around 60 mph and dont have much power until they reach close to that speed.
Strange isnt it that in a quest to gain HP its possible to find it, but loose practicality and speed where it counts.
Cheers

 

[xctasy]

The local XT GT 302 was a very under camed engine. Early 271 hp Mustang 289's had a screamer of a cam (310 degrees, 450 thou lift) which was solid lifter, so noisy that the American public hated it, with only 15 000 units made from 63 to 67. Could rev over 6500 rpm with out a hint of stress. The 302 used the same hydraulic cam as the 289 225 hp, the engines being the same bar for the extra stroke and shorter rods. Blocks were identical, despite all the gossip that the bore skirts were extended. Wasn't so.

With a cam change, the 302 becomes a wide awake screamer. Heads were not the same. The 271 HP 289 heads had screw in studs, hardened pushrods. I'm pretty sure theAussie 230 hp 302 4V never got these. I can't remember if the carb was very big. I'm sure it was only a 480 cfm 4100 Autolite carb. The 271 hp option was carried over to the Shelby Mustang and got 715 cfm 4-bbl carb and over 306 hp gross when it was a 289. There were 345 hp Triple carb versions with three #2300 2-bbl carbs. A tuning nightmare. The potential was certainly there! But Shelby was too busy putting KR 500's with vast 427 or 428 FE engines to bother with the 302.

 

[goinbroke2]

Xecute, I agree with everything you said(blocks are the same,480 cfm,etc) with the exception of one thing.
The American public didn't "hate" the noise of the solid lifters in the 289 any more than the 273 dodge or 427 FE. They sold what they sold for numerous reasons, but it wasn't solid lifter noise hatred.

They (like boss 351's,boss 302's,boss429's,427 2-4v,etc) had bad road manners! Not everybody wanted a 1200rpm idling/sluggish to 3000 rpm screamer with bad gas milage.
I loved mine, didn't mind the valve adjusting, cared less about the milage, and liked the fact that the hood scoop I put on would crack the bondo off in about a week from the shaking.
But...I sold it for a 428cj with the hyd cj cam, then a 292hyd cam, then a 294solid crower cam. You think the 289 was nasty with that "little solid cam? you should of seen my 69 mustang!


oh crap....did I just show my age there?

 

[xctasy]

On the record, I am a closet V8 freek. There is nothing like the rummble of a wild eight for image building. Just how amny extra 200 and 225 289 V8's were sold because of the 271HP or GT 350 engine remains unreported. Or how many FE 390 GTA's or stock FE Fairlanes and Galaxies were sold because the engines were beased on the Cobra 427 is not noted either.

That's the point about sixes I'd like to make. When V8's got milder, not wilder, the American public bought more. A six is a mild engine, with great low-end torque they way Ford built them. A hotter six shows less bad manners than a hot eight does.

A CJ 428 or even the 429, is one baaad machine, everthing rocks. A Falcon turbo XR6, or even the stock XR6, is so much more fun to live with day in, day out, than a 5.0 or 5.4 V8 ever will be. Even with a punny 4 liters, it rules the road.

V8's have had there day. Sixes are taking over as the image mover, even if they have less potential for power increase than a good V8. And you Americans taught us how. Sort of like being hit over the head with the broom you lent out!

 

[goinbroke2]

v8's have had their day???
Not over here!!!
v10's are getting to be the norm!
A buddy is selling his new Hemi dodge pick up because it gets 10MPG!!!
I know a guy with an Excursion, v-10 Triton, gets 11MPG.
Gas is so expensive now, so why is the factory's selling these?
People are sick and tired of small econo junk I'd say.
Yes there are lots of fart can 4's out there now, and the standard seems to be a v6 now. But performance (or work in a truck) is still spelled VEE-EIGHT!!
The big production everybody is making over the new gto is based on; 1) it's rear wheel drive 2) it's a 6spd standard 3) it's a v-8!

I guess it's like somebody building a japcrap 4cyl turbo/dual overhead cam/4 valve per cyl/blah blah blah that makes lots of power and outruns a 35 year old muscle car.....who cares, the muscle car has CLASS and STYLE and a wicked sound. The other is still a fartcan! Which would YOU rather have???

Of course that was a bad example because I've yet to actually see one of these so called "fast" fart cans actually beat a muscle car

 

[xctasy]

I can walk 4 km to work, an photo my mates VR4 Mitsubishi Galant. Boost controller, 4wd, 4wheel steering, 5-speeds, 350 hp, and 12.7 second quarters.

Or a Acura Integra V-tech that does 9's for the 1320 ft dash.


The muscle cars are the coolest, but even something like an early Plymouth Belvederea with, say, a Dick Landy RB Wedge 520 with Hemi heads is gonna need a lot more than stock prep to eat one of these.

Aint knocking Detroit Iron. It rules Cool.

But, over here anyway, little import Ricers are not to be messed with. They do, however, send there owners to the poor house in a way even a stout V8 doesn't.

Sixes, brother, they are coming back in style. V8's will always be what most aspire to, but sixes will be what most can afford. The ricer mob will always produce a small, but plentifull counter current of dis-affected disciples who will end up wanting a six, I think.Certianly true in Aussie and Kiwiland. In America, you'll just have to wait to see what I've said pan out.

 

[goinbroke2]

A pair of 11 sec cars, one an old hemi cuda(my buddy's run 11.20's and is pretty much stock) and a fart can. Both run 11.20, do you want the zipper sound and rowing the gears as the fart can goes or the massive launch and pressure on your chest as the hemi goes through the lights?

Put another way, go down hill on a bicycle at 50 mph and wow what a rush! Now go down at 50mph on a 1000cc bike...pretty calm eh?

Every 100lb's equals 10 hp but you can't replace the feeling, a 4000lb car with 400hp lifting the nose and squating you in the seat is cool. A 2000lb car with 200 hp is like a go cart ride. Even if it is fast, it's just not the same.
Perhaps this is something that can't be explained. Maybe you just have to find a 12 sec 3800lb car and see what I'm talking about.

 

[xctasy]

My idea of a good time is a 73 Torino with a 460 taken out to 514, twin quads, and the ability to make ricers kiss its grits. We had a guy arrested back in 1988 in Alexandra with a Montego with a 460. 4300 pounds, 12 second quarters, and black as the ace of spades. He used it as a burnout pad machine in just about every street in our town.

Then there was my mate Blairs 351C 1971 Falcon. 3500 pounds. 14 second quarters and 20 US mpg, even when hammered. We travelled the 1/8 mile, and

'335' and '385'V8 power....I'm a believer. Just can't afford the 5 grand it took both these guys to rebuild there engines after 'mechanical misadventures'.

Sorry to be repetitve. Love your work! Your name says it all goinbroke2. Let go broke together!

 

[Anonymous]

I like sleeper cars that look like something else but really are not. Power in a vehicle for me is not about outright HP it is simply about one thing, pushing aside pre-conceived notions ( in other words, what most if not every one thinks is true).
This is where all the fun is at. The issue is not even if you are quicker the question is,does he or she think you should have been a mile behind not just a meter.
You can lose and still win big time? (not that a good six has to lose very often).
The benchmark is without doupt the V8. How many times have you heard it said "it was quicker than a V8" every one seems to compair their vehicle to a V8 (I am not stating why just a fact).
It seems to me that a 250 Ford six for example is a bit of a freek. Let me explain. It has a what many would consider to be too long a stroke and short rods and is under cubed compaired to most V8s and some of the head designs had there problems too.
The thing is all of these "so called"problems also have some advantages. In my mind, this makes the 250 a perfect engine as it does perform admirably up too a "point". It will do what it does best (mid range?) almost better than anything else around its size, and induction equal.
As for pre-concieved notions, the bigger Ford sixes have and
will give those "notions" a good hammering.

Cheers