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

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: 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.


Fanbois that had played too much GT3.

 

[lubricatosaurus]

Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Originally Posted By: 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.


Fanbois that had played too much GT3.


If driven properly, an Evo can beat a Lamborghini Murcielago, from 2008:
http://www.topgear.com/videos/top-gear-tv/mitsubishi-evo-vs-lamborghini-part-12-series-5-episode-7

 

[DoubleWasp]

Originally Posted By: 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


Yes.

Porsche did the performance 3.0 4-banger 20 years ago with the 968. Can be done.

 

[Olas]

How about a Buick Verano, remapped?

The 2.0 turbo will map to 350hp and 450lbs/ft with an intake and downpipe.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: Olas
How about a Buick Verano, remapped?

The 2.0 turbo will map to 350hp and 450lbs/ft with an intake and downpipe.


Okay. Care to speculate on engine life at those levels?

 

[Cujet]

Better yet, how much better would that Buick perform with a 460hp V8?

As for lifespan of hgh boost turbo 4's. It's actually pretty good. Fords ecoboost truck engines seem to be holding up very well.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: Cujet
Better yet, how much better would that Buick perform with a 460hp V8?

As for lifespan of hgh boost turbo 4's. It's actually pretty good. Fords ecoboost truck engines seem to be holding up very well.


In a factory tune almost all turbo engines do well. I'm talking about the aftermarket.

I know tuners with great skill, usually on a specific platform. I know others with significant shortcomings.

No one in the aftermarket can afford the durability testing that the OEM's do on their vehicles. Sometimes it shows...

 

[aquariuscsm]

Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Originally Posted By: 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.


Fanbois that had played too much GT3.


If driven properly, an Evo can beat a Lamborghini Murcielago, from 2008:
http://www.topgear.com/videos/top-gear-tv/mitsubishi-evo-vs-lamborghini-part-12-series-5-episode-7


I LOVE that Evo!!

 

[CT8]

Originally Posted By: cpayne5
Who cares. Buy and drive what you like and don't criticize your neighbor when they do the same.

Lots of great cars out there these days.
+1

 

[ls1mike]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: Olas
How about a Buick Verano, remapped?

The 2.0 turbo will map to 350hp and 450lbs/ft with an intake and downpipe.


Okay. Care to speculate on engine life at those levels?


Actually GM has done a bunch of testing and that engine lives very good at those levels. In fact the previous one did as well. The 2.0 LTG in the ATS, Regal and Malibu has a better rotating assembly the ATS is 272 Stock.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: ls1mike
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: Olas
How about a Buick Verano, remapped?

The 2.0 turbo will map to 350hp and 450lbs/ft with an intake and downpipe.


Okay. Care to speculate on engine life at those levels?


Actually GM has done a bunch of testing and that engine lives very good at those levels. In fact the previous one did as well. The 2.0 LTG in the ATS, Regal and Malibu has a better rotating assembly the ATS is 272 Stock.


I would feel much better about the GM kits with a FACTORY tune than the aftermarket folks, Mike...

 

[Olas]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: ls1mike
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: Olas
How about a Buick Verano, remapped?

The 2.0 turbo will map to 350hp and 450lbs/ft with an intake and downpipe.


Okay. Care to speculate on engine life at those levels?


Actually GM has done a bunch of testing and that engine lives very good at those levels. In fact the previous one did as well. The 2.0 LTG in the ATS, Regal and Malibu has a better rotating assembly the ATS is 272 Stock.


I would feel much better about the GM kits with a FACTORY tune than the aftermarket folks, Mike...


Yu mean a compromised factory tune with leeway for fuel quality and poor servicing? I'd rather have a live map written on a rolling road so I KNOW what's with timing, fuelling, boost, EGT etc.
The OEMs get stuff wrong very often, especially GM, so I wouldn't really trust their calibration any more than I'd trust their ignition switches.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: Olas

Yu mean a compromised factory tune with leeway for fuel quality and poor servicing? I'd rather have a live map written on a rolling road so I KNOW what's with timing, fuelling, boost, EGT etc.
The OEMs get stuff wrong very often, especially GM, so I wouldn't really trust their calibration any more than I'd trust their ignition switches.


Yep, a rolling map done by some aftermarket software and of course it had extensive durability and longevity testing for hundreds of thousands of miles just like the OEM's? Comes with a 100k mile warranty? Haw!

Sorry, but ignition switches hardly are relevant here. We're talking about aftermarket versus OEM for quality and durability. You are welcome to shove whatever shade tree tune you can download onto your car but I will be VERY careful before I choose one. GM already has beautiful kits in house for the Solstice and Sky and others, with more in the works.

NO aftermarket tuner anywhere has the resources to test like an OEM does. Not even close. Until they can show us dozens of daily drivers that have made it to 200k miles or more...

 

[Olas]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: Olas

Yu mean a compromised factory tune with leeway for fuel quality and poor servicing? I'd rather have a live map written on a rolling road so I KNOW what's with timing, fuelling, boost, EGT etc.
The OEMs get stuff wrong very often, especially GM, so I wouldn't really trust their calibration any more than I'd trust their ignition switches.


Yep, a rolling map done by some aftermarket software and of course it had extensive durability and longevity testing for hundreds of thousands of miles just like the OEM's? Comes with a 100k mile warranty? Haw!

Sorry, but ignition switches hardly are relevant here. We're talking about aftermarket versus OEM for quality and durability. You are welcome to shove whatever shade tree tune you can download onto your car but I will be VERY careful before I choose one. GM already has beautiful kits in house for the Solstice and Sky and others, with more in the works.

NO aftermarket tuner anywhere has the resources to test like an OEM does. Not even close. Until they can show us dozens of daily drivers that have made it to 200k miles or more...



Not done by software, done live on a laptop and rolling road.
My 100k warranty went out the window with upgraded brakes, suspension and engine so it's a non-sequitur.
Aftermarket vs OEM reliability? Depends on the manufacturers of both parts eg; carbon ceramic brakes are better than your standard discs and rotors, but you fit them and you lose your warranty, by improving the car. Warranty is like a protection racket.
Any shade-tree tune I can shove on my car involves twisting my dizzy and jetting my carb, and that was done on a rolling road, in real time. Drives better than before, too.
Dozens of daily drivers at 200k or more is ridiculous, I only have one car so I can't give you my own data! Besides, it sounds like you'd prefer to drive a more boring car, or you're so indoctrinated into believing the OEMs word on everything that you never deviate from their printed word - so if you want data, go look for it.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Olas


Not done by software, done live on a laptop and rolling road.


And what runs on a laptop big guy? Software!!! Good grief

Originally Posted By: Olas
My 100k warranty went out the window with upgraded brakes, suspension and engine so it's a non-sequitur.


No it isn't, discussing the OEM tune vs the aftermarket and the points being brought up follow each other just fine.

Originally Posted By: Olas
Aftermarket vs OEM reliability? Depends on the manufacturers of both parts eg; carbon ceramic brakes are better than your standard discs and rotors, but you fit them and you lose your warranty, by improving the car. Warranty is like a protection racket.


Do you have documentation that indicates that swapping out your brakes for carbon ceramic ones (specifically) voids the warranty?

Originally Posted By: Olas
Any shade-tree tune I can shove on my car involves twisting my dizzy and jetting my carb, and that was done on a rolling road, in real time. Drives better than before, too.
Dozens of daily drivers at 200k or more is ridiculous, I only have one car so I can't give you my own data! Besides, it sounds like you'd prefer to drive a more boring car, or you're so indoctrinated into believing the OEMs word on everything that you never deviate from their printed word - so if you want data, go look for it.


That says a whole lot of absolutely nothing about what is being discussed. And yes, I'm sure Steve's car is really boring........

How much power is your VW putting down on the rollers? 98HP? I'm sure a 425HP car is an absolute Nyquil overdose in comparison.

 

[Olas]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Olas


Not done by software, done live on a laptop and rolling road.


And what runs on a laptop big guy? Software!!! Good grief

Originally Posted By: Olas
My 100k warranty went out the window with upgraded brakes, suspension and engine so it's a non-sequitur.


No it isn't, discussing the OEM tune vs the aftermarket and the points being brought up follow each other just fine.

Originally Posted By: Olas
Aftermarket vs OEM reliability? Depends on the manufacturers of both parts eg; carbon ceramic brakes are better than your standard discs and rotors, but you fit them and you lose your warranty, by improving the car. Warranty is like a protection racket.


Do you have documentation that indicates that swapping out your brakes for carbon ceramic ones (specifically) voids the warranty?

Originally Posted By: Olas
Any shade-tree tune I can shove on my car involves twisting my dizzy and jetting my carb, and that was done on a rolling road, in real time. Drives better than before, too.
Dozens of daily drivers at 200k or more is ridiculous, I only have one car so I can't give you my own data! Besides, it sounds like you'd prefer to drive a more boring car, or you're so indoctrinated into believing the OEMs word on everything that you never deviate from their printed word - so if you want data, go look for it.


That says a whole lot of absolutely nothing about what is being discussed. And yes, I'm sure Steve's car is really boring........

How much power is your VW putting down on the rollers? 98HP? I'm sure a 425HP car is an absolute Nyquil overdose in comparison.


Doing it by software implies uploading a new file through the obd port. The laptop used would be filling in all the load cells to optimise for the hardware. How else you'd you program an ECU?
Fair
I have documentation (as do many others) that fitting non-factory parts voids warranty claims relating to the system that said parts were fitted to.
You didn't realise that there was no direct comparison, only that whatever comes from the factory can be improved upon.

(sorry, not sure how to break down quotes in the manner shown above)

So after transatlantic semantics, is it fair to say that you prefer what the OEM does as compared to what the aftermarket does?
I feel like the factory car is a part finished job, and in "finishing" the job my car has shorter stopping distance, approx. 30% more power and higher cornering speeds - wether with factory parts or aftermarket parts you can always get more out of any car. Look at long tube headers and Hotchkiss suspension for example...

 

[supton]

I prefer to wait until out of warranty before messing with things. At least anything that comes close to voiding warranty. About the only thing I've done that came close to that was changing tires to a set that I thought would get me out of buying snows (it didn't), otherwise I just drive the car for a few years and replace stuff as it breaks or wears out. At that time I decide if an upgrade is worth it.

Seems foolish to remove perfectly working hardware. Paid for it, unless if I can sell it then it's throwing away money. Still have that set of tires in my shed two years later, couldn't get what I thought would be a good price for them, thus a waste of my money.

 

[lubricatosaurus]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Olas


Not done by software, done live on a laptop and rolling road.


And what runs on a laptop big guy? Software!!! Good grief

.


Olas is talking about updating the firmware, not the software, overkill.
Your usual weird over-reaction. Get a clue before calling Olas dumb with the

junk.
The engine computer's software lines of code run algorithms, and get lookup table values from firmware with the numbers.

Bottom line is it's possible to change constants in the firmware without over-stressing engine limits. Sure we engineers can get over confident in our abilities to know where the limits are, yet being clueless about vehicle physics like overhill is the naive extreme.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Olas, I think you're absolutely right that you can usually get "more" out of any car. As you noted earlier, there are usually allowances made affecting engine tune (such as allowing for different fuel quality), suspension tune (allowing for different road types and conditions, etc), and more, in the "from the factory" package from the OEM. The OEM also has to validate that there's enough engineered capacity or freeboard in the design to deliver a durable package. For example, most every vehicle could use much lighter suspension components, if we knew that we'd never hit a pothole or have to climb a curb.

The obvious trade-off of making changes to the OEM package is you introduce variables that may bring unintended consequences, and I think that's the point others are trying to make. In general, getting "more" out of something also means you're removing some of that safety factor. In tuning an engine closer to its limit, you have to be more careful regarding fuel quality, for example. In opening the intake or exhaust, you often get more resonance in the cabin, which is not desirable to some. In tuning a suspension for sharper handling, you have to be more careful to not hit potholes, for example. Aftermarket suspension components are sometimes not as durable as OEM ones, because they're more focused on different priorities. It's not uncommon for owners of modified cars to have to tweak their tune over time, or be more diligent on keeping up with alignments, etc.

None of this is good or bad, it's just setting up a vehicle from different perspectives. EVERYTHING is a compromise, though, and I think that's the most important thing to remember. You often see people say they've set up a "no compromises" vehicle or something similar. Unless they've got a go-kart or a Formula 1 machine, I can't think of something that hasn't made performance compromises for passenger comfort. In my opinion, the entire second half of this thread is simply a discussion of different sets of compromises and desires. What some might call "fun", others might call "unbearable". What some might call "boring" or "dull", others might call "pleasing" or "agreeable".

None of it is wrong or right...just different. And more desirable to some than others.

 

[SteveSRT8]

^^^Exactly. And imagining that you can do a better job than the OEM is fine for YOUR CAR. Not necessarily others cars, just yours. Then the penalties like shorter engine life and other things are your problem if they occur. I never said they will, just that there might be a penalty involved, especially when the car is a high strung piece like the 272 hp 2.0 from GM. And to imply there are no consequences sure seems naive to me.

I run a Diablosport canned tune on my car. Had nothing to do with performance as the car runs the same with or without it at the strip. But the HUGE improvement in the stability control system thresholds of intervention was entirely worth it. It's a matter of personal preference.

Obviously I'm fine with it, I just want others who are not as familiar to be cautious about what they hear on the Net...