Any good non fan boy forums? 3 Make Engine Question

Looking for a forum where people discusses a wide variety of makes to some intellectual extent. Not looking for a fan boy forum looking for technical knowledge.

In the mean time, here is what I am curious about.
When I saw the 2.4L Buick Regal I was quite confused how it gets such crappy mileage compared to the Hyundai Sonata's GDI 2.4L which is stellar. So I started thinking weight... So I looked it up and the Regal weighs 1000lbs more than the Sonata, not sure how but it does. So it set my mind at ease. But then I thought to myself wait.. The Toyota Avalon/ Lexus ES/ Camry ect use the 3.5L V6 19/28 and it gets the same mileage as the Regal 19 city/31 hwy. I am very surprised that a 4 cylinder vehicle that is smaller than the other with a v6 gets the same estimated mpg in the city. I find it odd Buick is scrapping their base 2.4L model and making the eassist standard. Adding a semi hybrid thing that takes up 1/3 of your trunk space to get better mileage kinda sucks.

Hyundai 24/35
Standard Engine 2.4L 198 hp I4
Horsepower 198 @ 6300 RPM
Torque (lb-ft) 184 @ 4250 RPM

Buick 19/30
Standard Engine 2.4L 182 hp I4
Horsepower 182 @ 6700 RPM
Torque (lb-ft) 172 @ 4900 RPM

Toyota 19 / 28
Standard Engine 3.5L 268 hp V6
Horsepower 268 @ 6200 RPM
Torque (lb-ft) 248 @ 4700 RPM

operating the vehicle near its most efficient point of hp/tq per unit of fuel helps immensely for mileage. What is the transmission and rear diff ratios of the vehicles? Could be the hyundai and toyota are running 3000-3500rpm at highway speeds where the buick might have been tuned at 2200-2600.. ish. Auto/manual will play a part in that as well.

i thought the same about the buick when i saw the autoweek on the verano, affter looking into it i found that the 2.4L is low compression for current models with 11.2:1, it has no cam, no VVT, and the engine was designed to have e-assist (hybrid assistance like nissan uses were an electric motor helps the engine rev quicker from start) but it was cut due to space concerns on the verano but the compression was not raised and the cam was not fixed. then the regal is offered with that engine as an option with no e-assist so that one gets terrible millage. they do have the 2.0L turbo that makes 220HP and gets 19/29 and 260 torque. the 2.4 is also a GM engine but the 2L turbo is an opal like the 1.4 turbo that the cruze has, so basically the rule still stands that you should never buy a car with an american brands american engine, hence why ford has been so awesome recently since they have switched to all euro engines.

have you looked at the torus it has the most power of the 4 bangers with 240hp/270torque and it is supposed to be 21/31+ (but the 2013 model is not on sale yet, it will be within the month)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STEvil

operating the vehicle near its most efficient point of hp/tq per unit of fuel helps immensely for mileage. What is the transmission and rear diff ratios of the vehicles? Could be the hyundai and toyota are running 3000-3500rpm at highway speeds where the buick might have been tuned at 2200-2600.. ish. Auto/manual will play a part in that as well.

---

not true, with VVT/ full cheater cams, 12:1+ compression, electric pumps, hard ass tires, and better aero kits you can make enough power thanks to very little leach at about 1900-2000RPM while still having high vacuum. the avalon for instance uses a 4.10 gear and 0.61 6th with 26.31" tall tires so it runs 65mph at 2000, the hyundia sonata uses a 2.89 gear, 0.77 6th and has the same 26.31" wheels so that dose 65 at 1850.

changing from hydraulic power steering, detachable ac pulley, and timing chain/belt water pump is good for about 10-15% more power at the low end, so just with that change it lets you run much lower rpm. electronic power steering dose suck though as u have no feeling of grip or road conditions.

That doesnt negate what I said, it just adds to the litany of items that can influence your efficiency at a given RPM.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STEvil

That doesnt negate what I said, it just adds to the litany of items that can influence your efficiency at a given RPM.

---

your right on that, my point was that the high MPG is due to lower RPM not more efficiency at the same old style rpm, that buick is also going to be at about 1900rpm so it makes no sense that it should get that poor economy and power unless it is poorly tunes with no VVT or lift.

OK first off, the 2.4L engine is a low end engine. The 2.0L is a premium engine. The 2.4L & the 2.0L are related, the 2.0L is not an opel (Note not opal) the 1.4L engine is opel designed for economy and not much else. The 1.4L is considered a midrange engine in the I4 family, the 2.0L is considered the high end. Some 2.0L engines have been boosted well beyond 500whp.........

All engines in current mass production have at least one cam. There is no such thing as a cam-less engine in production. There were and are some race engines that use pneumatic valves and are cam-less.

Now the compression ratio being in the 11's is considered high for a gasoline engine. Ford engines are 99% designed in the US. Lets start with their top engine down to their small ones.
6.2L - truck engine sohc, 400+ hp designed to be used in environments that need a durable work horse SOHC heads on this engine. (American design)
5.8L - US design forced inducted v8 - no vvt & chain actuated cams. - 662hp (super snake version in the 1000hp range) (American design)
5.4L - see 5.8L and a few years older, some are sleeved engines some are coated. All American design. 500-550hp (supersnake ones in the 800hp range)
5.0L - US designed and built, quad cam vvt on all cams, 11:1 compression, port injected delivers 412-440hp depending on year made and or model. Supercharged or turbocharged aftermarket tuners have built 1000+hp
5.4L 3v - truck engine with SOHC vvt & iron block.
4.6L 3v - car engine with sohc & vvt (3valves per cylinder) also used in mid and light trucks & suv's (tuners have built 2000+ Hp with them)- all American design.
3.7L - car or truck engine, all aluminum, quad cam & vvt, port injected 300-305hp N/A - American design.
3.5L - 290hp quad cam vvt & direct injection. Ecoboost models have forged rods and cast pistons. makes 360hp, however under rated. (American design)
2.5L - I4 engine built for low end car or as a hybrid generator. twin cam, no vvt & 4 valves per cylinder. (American designed)
2.3L - I4 same as 2.5L (cosworth used this engine as a race engine, some made 300-400hp naturally aspirated revving to 13krpm) American design and built, mazda used the bottom end in their mzr series engines with their own head.
2.0L - I4 with direct injection, designed to be either turbocharged or naturally aspirated. American design.
1.6L - small ecoboost engine American design.

This covers their engines, so the whole European design thing is out the window. They are more durable than mostly anything made and they all are very very low maintenance engines. Generalizations like the ones mentioned, and misinformation is a big part that keeps stupidity going through the web. Take it from a gearhead, unless you have the parts laying in your hands and seeing the differences up close you would never realize what the reality is.

As for the hundai engine, that is actually a dsm engine developed in the 90's. Chrysler & mitsubishi worked jointly to develop it. Its an ok engine, but no where near as stout as the 2.4L from GM is, block webbing on the gm engine makes it very strong, aluminum construction makes it light and the bearings in the GM 2.4L are in a different class. The 2.4L DSM engine is known for burning oil FYI. So keep an eye on it. Also the buick is considered a mid range luxury car, the hyundai.... well its a hyundai. The weight of the buick comes from being a full size sedan, and more gadgets and safety than you can shake a stick at.

EDIT; forgot to mention that there comes a point where compression ratio being too high will rob fuel economy and power. You will get an engine that knocks. Trick of the matter is keeping compression ratio between 9:1 to 10:1 while providing boost down low. That raises Volumetric efficiency. It takes some major knowledge in mechanical engineering and combustion chamber design and simulation to come up with something decent. Making power in retrospect is easy compared to making it efficient while durable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zanzabar

your right on that, my point was that the high MPG is due to lower RPM not more efficiency at the same old style rpm, that buick is also going to be at about 1900rpm so it makes no sense that it should get that poor economy and power unless it is poorly tunes with no VVT or lift.

---

RPM & fuel economy have a corelation only if the gear ratios have been optimised and the engine power band has been optimized. VVT does not necessarily equate with fuel economy. a v8 can move a 3500lb car @1900rpm to 70mph with no issues, you try doing that with a peaky I4 and you will lug the engine, lug the engine long enough and it will spit shards of metal around eventually.

There are ton more ford engines than that..

with ford, the powerstroke was designed by volvo. the coyote, duratech v6 quad cams, duractech 1.6 2.0 and 2.3 are all from mazda for blocks then ford UK for turbos (if applicable), vvt-i (timing and lift), variable intake manifold, direct injection with the coyote block being based on a jaguar and the heads based on mazda. the only US based engine in the ford line up is the cleveland 351 in the raptor but that in its self is not a very US style engine with its sold lifters and semi hemi head. then there is the new 5.8L super charged in the gt500 that is made by shelby and they are not an auto maker but more of a tuning shop like henesy, roush , saleen.

for compression, if you get pre-detonation then that will ruin your engine, but variable spark and direct injection lets you add in fuel late so you have no risk of knocking. if you run 87 with multi port injection or any other non in cylinder fuel source then sure 11 is really high but a modern engine has the fuel in the ignition chamber so you can run 87 with 11.5 or 12:1, there is also no reason why we still use 87y, the fuel savings in changing to higher compression and more spark advance more than outweigh the 4% increase in cost (4.35 v 4.55 when i got fuel last.)

even with the cars in the US are now the focus (focus euro), taurus (US), fiesta (fiesta euro), ford fusion (mondeo) mustang (US), f-series (US), explorer (US), edge (being replaced by a mondeo), and the escape (c-max). so other than the mustang and taurus there are no US based cars from ford. with the focus they even started with the euro, changed to an US model, the US fails, they back to the euro.

on the buick though, there is no reason that it should make a little more power than my 94 altima (148 WHP, 160BHP rated) and get 2 MPG better. and when i shave the head and get it cleaned and all nice when i rebuild the top this summer i bet i will be at about 215 BHP and pick up that extra 2MPG when i get the fuel injection tuned to lean out a bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STEvil

There are ton more ford engines than that..

---

not really, in the US they have the powerstroke, duratec 1.6/2.0 na or turbo/2.3( 2011 was the last year)/3.5 na or turbo, 3.7 (basically the same as the 3.5), coyote 5.0, and Cceavland 351. they unified alot of power trains over this year and last year.

This year, yes. However, they have produced and used a lot of engines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ford_engines

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zanzabar

with ford, the powerstroke was designed by volvo. the coyote, duratech v6 quad cams, duractech 1.6 2.0 and 2.3 are all from mazda for blocks then ford UK for turbos (if applicable), vvt-i (timing and lift), variable intake manifold, direct injection with the coyote block being based on a jaguar and the heads based on mazda. the only US based engine in the ford line up is the cleveland 351 in the raptor but that in its self is not a very US style engine with its sold lifters and semi hemi head. then there is the new 5.8L super charged in the gt500 that is made by shelby and they are not an auto maker but more of a tuning shop like henesy, roush , saleen.

for compression, if you get pre-detonation then that will ruin your engine, but variable spark and direct injection lets you add in fuel late so you have no risk of knocking. if you run 87 with multi port injection or any other non in cylinder fuel source then sure 11 is really high but a modern engine has the fuel in the ignition chamber so you can run 87 with 11.5 or 12:1, there is also no reason why we still use 87y, the fuel savings in changing to higher compression and more spark advance more than outweigh the 4% increase in cost (4.35 v 4.55 when i got fuel last.)

even with the cars in the US are now the focus (focus euro), taurus (US), fiesta (fiesta euro), ford fusion (mondeo) mustang (US), f-series (US), explorer (US), edge (being replaced by a mondeo), and the escape (c-max). so other than the mustang and taurus there are no US based cars from ford. with the focus they even started with the euro, changed to an US model, the US fails, they back to the euro.

on the buick though, there is no reason that it should make a little more power than my 94 altima (148 WHP, 160BHP rated) and get 2 MPG better. and when i shave the head and get it cleaned and all nice when i rebuild the top this summer i bet i will be at about 215 BHP and pick up that extra 2MPG when i get the fuel injection tuned to lean out a bit.



not really, in the US they have the powerstroke, duratec 1.6/2.0 na or turbo/2.3( 2011 was the last year)/3.5 na or turbo, 3.7 (basically the same as the 3.5), coyote 5.0, and Cceavland 351. they unified alot of power trains over this year and last year.

---

Wow just wow. International harvester is the designer of the ford diesels. Then they went inhouse with the design. Nothing in the modular range has had any input from jag or otherwise, they had hohc v8's when jag was running ancient i6's. The 351, is no longer produced. The 6.2 is a larger modular engine. Nothing mazda or otherwise in it. When mazda had sohc i4 engines ford was producing dba's.... if you dont know what those are then read. Lets not get confused. Do some reading. The jag engines you refer were in fact developed by ford. Not the other way around. Mazda designed the head on their version of the ford engine. However the ford head is different, not even close to the same casting. The cayote heads are based on the ford GT heads, which were developed by roush racing. They outflow the ford gt heads by 15% out the box in a cayote. For the record I think you have been reading http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page. Ford has spend billions to develop these engines. They would have not if they could have simply bought the tech. For what its worth, I think ford spent more money developing the head bolts on a modular than hundai spent on developing engines.

As for the platforms. Ford is introducing slowly but surely modular GLOBAL, platforms, some will be built here, some other places. At the end of the day the engineers are in Dearborn MI.

Hate to break it to you, but your 94 altima gets about 21mpg combined. As for shaving the head and leaning out the mixture, good luck raising compression and leaning out mixture, I hope you like holes in your pistons. As for 200+hp, yeh keep on dreaming, without head work, porting, cams, springs, oversize valves, high compression and forged pistons. while going from 21mpg combined to 12. All in all about 2-3K in machine work, and another 2-5k in parts, I assume your an auto too? Throw in a high stall torque converter in there to prevent stalling and lugging.

Sorry for the late reply, just saw this.

Actually the Coyote 5.0 is a Modular engine. The 6.2 Boss is a new family.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [XC] Lead Head

Actually the Coyote 5.0 is a Modular engine. The 6.2 Boss is a new family.

---

Boss engines were primarily the designation of modular engines in Australia. I believe they just built on-top of that range.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaguarking11

Boss engines were primarily the designation of modular engines in Australia. I believe they just built on-top of that range.

---

No. The Modulars were just called "Boss" in Australia, that's it. Just a name. What makes modular engines, well modular is that they all shared a common bore spacing, similar block, head, etc...design. The 5.4 and 4.6 shared heads, the 6.8 V10 used the same pistons as the 5.4, etc...This let the entire range of engines be built on the same lines with pretty much the same tooling. The 5.0 is essentially an evolution of the 4.6. It uses the same deck height, bore centers, etc..as the rest of the modular range.

The 6.2L engine is an entirely new family. It has far wider bore centers, much heavier and larger block, much taller deck height, completely different head design, etc..It shares nothing in common at all with the modulars.

The nissan altima 4 banger is junk....it has changed very little over the years. Go price an 03 2.5 at junkyards......when they range from 1200-1800 used that tells you something.........they charge so much because they are junk and rarely get good ones in stock. Commonly failed parts always fetch higher prices due to demand for the parts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [XC] Lead Head

No. The Modulars were just called "Boss" in Australia, that's it. Just a name. What makes modular engines, well modular is that they all shared a common bore spacing, similar block, head, etc...design. The 5.4 and 4.6 shared heads, the 6.8 V10 used the same pistons as the 5.4, etc...This let the entire range of engines be built on the same lines with pretty much the same tooling. The 5.0 is essentially an evolution of the 4.6. It uses the same deck height, bore centers, etc..as the rest of the modular range.

The 6.2L engine is an entirely new family. It has far wider bore centers, much heavier and larger block, much taller deck height, completely different head design, etc..It shares nothing in common at all with the modulars.

---

The 5.4L and 4.6L have completely different heads, the 6.8L has the same bore, spacing etc as the 5.4L thus uses the same parts, but with the split crank design its more or less immensely different. The modular motre design refers to how simple it is to swap the tooling to make each motor. It is merely a manufacturing standpoint in which they are "modular"

And the 6.2L is still a mod motor, but produced under the "boss" name which is an internal designator for the new bigger Ford motors designed to compete with the hemi and 6.2L GM motors. It is still basically the same motor with a wider bore spacing allowing for bigger bores (115mm vs 100mm). The big boss motor under design now is the 777. 7.0L 700HP@7,000RPM.

4.6 and 5.4 heads are exactly the same - from the 2v to the 3v heads (not counting the low-volume DOHC 4.6/5.4 heads). The only difference between a 5.4 and a 4.6 is a longer stroke, taller deck-height, a wider intake and different cams.

The 4.6-5.4-6.8 use the same bore size, same bore spacing and the same pistons. This allows all three engines to be machined using the same tooling, and manufactured using similar parts (same pistons across all 3, same heads on 4.6/5.4). Those characteristics are what made modular engines, modular.

The 6.2 is a completely different engine. Block structure is completely new and different, heads are completely different, pistons, rods, crank, deck height, bore spacing, etc...Ford engineers themselves have stated it is not a modular engine.

you forgot, non PI 2V, and PI 2V heads for the the modular.