crossflow and pre-xflow

they were measured differntly. According to http://www.geocities.com/falconfacts/fa ... alcon.html
They claim 116kw for a log head 250.. THere is no way a log head 250 puts out 15 kw more than an XF alloy head 250, which is rated at around 98 kw.
Im fairly sure that when these figures were published they used a differnt way of claiming an engine power...
In the real world, a stock alloy head 250 will out gun a stock 250 2v... The alloy head out flows, has a much better port design, better carby...
i dont see alot going for the 2v...
 
maybe true - I don't know about how they got their power figures.

I had a 2V and now have a crossflow in the ZC - I'd say the 2V has the edge using my "seat of the pants" dyno.

The crossflow probably uses less fuel.
 
I've seen reasonable comment that SOTP sensation is influenced by bogging down slightly, then recovering. This is "felt" as a more powerful motor due to the slight surging.
 
addo":2v26d4j9 said:
I've seen reasonable comment that SOTP sensation is influenced by bogging down slightly, then recovering. This is "felt" as a more powerful motor due to the slight surging.
Interesting - on that topic, the crossflow in there now bogs down a bit where the 2V had better stick off the bottom with the staged butterfly 350 Holley...

I'll see how it goes once I put the kit through the Weber...
 
i have had both engines in the same car and driven a few of each and i reccon a stock 250 2v will eat a stock x-flow,my opion.some will disagree.
 
SONNY":3e0lc01o said:
i have had both engines in the same car and driven a few of each and i reccon a stock 250 2v will eat a stock x-flow,my opion.some will disagree.
I tend to agree, but I have to admint to being less than scientific about it...

Also, I think the 2V makes a better noise.

That being said, once the 2V in the XY ute fails, I'll be replacing it with a crossflow and putting the 2V in the museum...
 
Back
Top