Proof Chevy V8's beat blown 4-cylinders - Focus RS

[jigen]

Originally Posted By: jigen
The ST though, it's rare to see anyone pay 30k for this vehicle. Base ST1 packages can be had for 21-22k. Our loaded Focus ST with Recaros and every option besides a sunroof had a sticker of $30,800. We paid $24.5
That is a great deal. Only thing you give up is the bragging rights about having an RS, the AWD, and the acceleration. Those FocusST Recaro seats are fantastic:

[/quote]

Yeah I love them, but I can see why a lot of people find them too snug. I'm a skinny guy (5'11" 160lbs) and if I weighed 30-40lbs more than that I could see myself not being able to get comfortable.

 

[supton]

I'd think a larger but turning slower energy would obtain more conversion of heat into mechanical energy. Larger surface area yes (for heat to transfer into cooling jackets) but surface area goes up as a square law--displacement goes up as a cubic. Lower rpm = more time to expand.

Valve train type (OHC vs cam in block) doesn't matter, although I'm not sure how easy it is to play with lobe separation on a single cam (unlike DOHC where each cam can have a phaser).

 

[SteveSRT8]

The modern Hemi still presents some packaging issues due to its pushrod angles.

There's a reason that there is an LS conversion kit for dozens of cars. I have an iron block 6.0 right now on the stand for a total makeover. It is so compact it is amazing. Hard to believe that such a small overall package is so easy to get outrageous and reliable power so cheaply...

 

[dja4260]

Originally Posted By: Miller88
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
Maybe this just means pushrod V-8's make sense.



Of COURSE pushrod engines "make sense" for passenger cars. The whole idea that they're in any way inferior is just a fabrication of the automotive press who only think in terms of "wow, that's different it must be better," and is a holdover from the 80s. It sure didn't originate with engineers in charge of building on-highway cars.

Pushrods and overhead cams open and close the valves, that's all. Neither one has a distinct advantage below about 7000 RPM, and guess what? Most passenger car engines never go north of 7000 RPM anyway, especially the larger ones. Above that, the lower inertia of an overhead-cam system has an advantage, as does being able to put 4 smaller valves in a cylinder instead of 2 large ones. But if you can stay below 7000 RPM, pushrods win hands-down in terms of compactness of the overall engine, ESPECIALLY V8 and v6 engines. Just compare a Ford Modular to a GM LSx, or a Chrysler Hemi to a Chrysler 4.7 SOHC to see the difference.



I like pushrod engines. But because over head cam is the "new" technology, it get used.

No timing belt. No tensioners. Instead, you get a small cam chain that lasts a long time. And you don't have to start tearing apart stuff on the bottom of the engine to get the head off should that need to happen.

Ironically, I spin my pushrod engine much quicker than the DOHC engine I have



We spin a 622ci push-rod motor to 8900 RPM. Talk about winging.

 

[SwampSurvivor]

That's a bit faster than mine!

The Jeep is so poorly geared that accelerating into traffic is often running at 3500-4000. The only time I really get much above 2000 in the Focus is when I'm cruising and run out of gears.

Of course, deep snow and mud pits mean the Jeep gets to run at the red line to get some wheel speed.

 

[lubricatosaurus]

Originally Posted By: supton
Valve train type (OHC vs cam in block) doesn't matter, although I'm not sure how easy it is to play with lobe separation on a single cam (unlike DOHC where each cam can have a phaser).

Cam in block means shorter timing chains, more durability, less cost.

My guess is marketing a twin-turbo DOHC 4-valve/cyl BMW N63 or even the Cadillac Northstar complicated nightmare actually makes the consumer think that they're getting the coolest performance solution for those many $$$ spent. Otherwise, common sense would prevail and torquey, cheaper pushrod engines would be refined more. They are to some extent of course.

You'd think the world would have listened better after this pushrod demon dominated in 1994:

Penske's Ilmor pushrod V8

 

[IndyIan]

Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
Originally Posted By: supton
Valve train type (OHC vs cam in block) doesn't matter, although I'm not sure how easy it is to play with lobe separation on a single cam (unlike DOHC where each cam can have a phaser).

Cam in block means shorter timing chains, more durability, less cost.

My guess is marketing a twin-turbo DOHC 4-valve/cyl BMW N63 or even the Cadillac Northstar complicated nightmare actually makes the consumer think that they're getting the coolest performance solution for those many $$$ spent. Otherwise, common sense would prevail and torquey, cheaper pushrod engines would be refined more. They are to some extent of course.

You'd think the world would have listened better after this pushrod demon dominated in 1994:

Penske's Ilmor pushrod V8

I'd take half of that engine in DD too!
Especially today when most people don't know or care what engine configuration is in their car, you'd think some engineers would go to a lower rpm cheaper pushrod engine? There must be some reason they don't?
Especially now with all these CVTs droning about... All that really matters is that the motor is unobtrusive, and efficient. Also being small, simple and lightweight are never bad things to an engineer either.

 

[itguy08]

Originally Posted By: javacontour
In a rough sense, wasn't that the 2.5L Iron Duke I4 GM had for years? Wasn't it half of one of the GM 5L engines, 301, 305?


The "old" 4.3 V6 was a 350 missing 2 cylinders and same as the Iron Duke, Gutless.

Ford's 2.3 HSC (Not to be confused with the Lima OHC 2.3) was a 300 I6 missing 2 cylinders as well. Pretty gutless too.

 

[itguy08]

Originally Posted By: OneEyeJack
There's another consideration here. I'd be willing to bet that the person that would purchase one of these cars would not even look at the other one.


Depends on the purchaser. For the SHO replacement I'm cross shopping:
Focus RS
Focus ST
Fusion Sport
Mustang GT
Even toying with a lease on a Land Rover Evoque as I find them drop dead gorgeous.

Granted I'm not typical but if you are after sporty you could conceivably cross shop them. It won't be until mid 2017 so maybe the RS "supply issues" will be sorted as I don't pay MSRP.

 

[IndyIan]

Originally Posted By: itguy08
Originally Posted By: javacontour
In a rough sense, wasn't that the 2.5L Iron Duke I4 GM had for years? Wasn't it half of one of the GM 5L engines, 301, 305?


The "old" 4.3 V6 was a 350 missing 2 cylinders and same as the Iron Duke, Gutless.

Ford's 2.3 HSC (Not to be confused with the Lima OHC 2.3) was a 300 I6 missing 2 cylinders as well. Pretty gutless too.

The new 4.3 V6 has got 285hp and 305 ftlb, which is roughly proportional to the new 6.2L V8 with 420hp. I guess a 3.1L 4 cyl would require some balancing tricks to work which sucks up some efficiency.

 

[stranger706]

The RS is starting to look like a big ripoff. Nevermind a V8. Look at this...

The Mustang with the same 2.3 Ecoboost (slightly detuned, 310 hp 320 tq) stickers for $26,500. So for $10,000 more in the Focus RS you get...part time AWD? And a nice spoiler. And terrible gas mileage...wow. Why is hwy mpg so low? The car mags say its 2wd on the hwy. Even the Explorer 2.3 gets 28 mpg hwy!

The Focus ST is a much better value. I got mine for $21,500. And it gets 32 mpg on the hwy without trying.

If I was shopping in the RS price range, I'd just get a 5.0 Mustang. More power, less money. And better mpg! Probably more reliable too. And a bigger safety margin for tuning.

 

[sciphi]

I wouldn't say ripoff as much as niche. There is a specific subset of buyers who will buy the RS. Maybe they want a powerful AWD hatch now that the STI doesn't come in hatch. Maybe AWD makes more sense than RWD. Maybe they don't want a Mustang like everybody else.

 

[MCompact]

Originally Posted By: sciphi
I wouldn't say ripoff as much as niche. There is a specific subset of buyers who will buy the RS. Maybe they want a powerful AWD hatch now that the STI doesn't come in hatch. Maybe AWD makes more sense than RWD. Maybe they don't want a Mustang like everybody else.


Exactly; I also considered an RS- it's a unique car that I could definitely enjoy owning.

 

[lubricatosaurus]

Originally Posted By: IndyIan
The new 4.3 V6 has got 285hp and 305 ftlb, which is roughly proportional to the new 6.2L V8 with 420hp. I guess a 3.1L 4 cyl would require some balancing tricks to work which sucks up some efficiency.


Balancing could scale up from what's done now on other 4-bangers, and the added rotational inertia you mentioned would indeed reduce fuel economy when fuel flow is increasing, yet make up for it by increased fuel economy during DFCO* torque reduction events.

That is a big 4-cylinder, that hypothetical half-LT1 V8. Great for the GM Colorado/Canyon trucks. Same pistons, heads, rods, etc.

*DFCO Dynamic Fuel Cut-Off during deceleration

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: OneEyeJack
There's another consideration here. I'd be willing to bet that the person that would purchase one of these cars would not even look at the other one.


I know I'm the exception, but IF I had the coin, I WOULD not just 'cross shop' these two, but would actually BUY both a Focus RS, AND either a GT 350R, or the next, 6th gen, Z28 (as long as it does not have a huffer sitting on top of lifter valley).

My love/passion for the WRC/rallying in general is undying.

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: MCompact
Originally Posted By: sciphi
I wouldn't say ripoff as much as niche. There is a specific subset of buyers who will buy the RS. Maybe they want a powerful AWD hatch now that the STI doesn't come in hatch. Maybe AWD makes more sense than RWD. Maybe they don't want a Mustang like everybody else.


Exactly; I also considered an RS- it's a unique car that I could definitely enjoy owning.


Yes, and now that the Evo is dead, and this thing (RS) is lighter than EITHER the Evo OR STI, with more stock power than either of those Nippon rally cars right off the showroom floor, with a factory warranty, it IS a deal (once the prices come down and the production goes up).

ALL of the Ford dealers I speak to say that they get about 50-60 calls a day inquiring about the RS!!
So the market IS there, and maybe the (former) import ONLY fanboyz are now willing to give this 'domestic' a try!

 

[Cujet]

Originally Posted By: dailydriver

Yes, and now that the Evo is dead, and this thing (RS) is lighter than EITHER the Evo OR STI, with more stock power than either of those Nippon rally cars right off the showroom floor, with a factory warranty, it IS a deal (once the prices come down and the production goes up).



The evo while impressive, was never a Corvette. My good friend road races an EVO MR with some nice tweaks. He does very well, but the prepped 'Vettes stomp him.

I just don't see why these types of cars gathered so much love. When a simple, pedestrian V6 Camaro performs similarly.

 

[Olas]

Do GM do an Astra equivalent in NA? The new one has 280hp and 290lbs/ft from a 2.0 at about 1400kg depending on trim etc..

 

[dishdude]

Originally Posted By: Olas
Do GM do an Astra equivalent in NA? The new one has 280hp and 290lbs/ft from a 2.0 at about 1400kg depending on trim etc..


They sold the 3 and 5 door here for one year, 2008.

Now it's a Buick Verano - saloon only.

 

[lubricatosaurus]

Originally Posted By: Olas
Do GM do an Astra equivalent in NA? The new one has 280hp and 290lbs/ft from a 2.0 at about 1400kg depending on trim etc..

The U.S. got an Astra for one model year, 2008, from the now extinct Saturn brand of GM. That GM Opel Astra platform was hot for a while, being here the summer of 2008 when oil speculators and supply disruptions drove the price of gas high, so people bought a lot of them even though the car had very little power at the time.

That 3100 lbs is light for 280 hp. Should be a hoot to drive in Europe.

GM doesn't compete with the Ford RS or Mitsu EVO categories in the U.S. anymore. Chevy Cruze (Delta Platform GM) here only has weak engines, so nothing to compete with hot small cars from Ford, Honda, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Subaru, etc.