I'm irritated at the lack of aftermarket for 2.0L/2.3L Ford Duratecs

[Ghost C]

Many motoring publications would disagree, as cars that achieve over 100hp/liter and are NA are widely celebrated.

Wow, 100hp per liter. So awesome! So impressive! Who cares?

HP/lb, and more importantly ft-lbs/lb, not hp/liter. Stop being such a sucker for flashy ways to show off a 150hp 1.5l Honda. Let me know when the manufacturers with 100hp/liter start making 6 liter street car engines, then I might care.

 

[Poverty]

Wow, 100hp per liter. So awesome! So impressive! Who cares?

HP/lb, and more importantly ft-lbs/lb, not hp/liter. Stop being such a sucker for flashy ways to show off a 150hp 1.5l Honda. Let me know when the manufacturers with 100hp/liter start making 6 liter street car engines, then I might care.

Torque only goes so much, same with HP, obvioulsy if you car is a fat turd you need plenty of torque, but in the real racing world, you only need so much torque.

As for 6 liter 100hp/liter engines I think AMG are near that marker, if you have the money.

 

[Ghost C]

Your racing experience stops with Gran Turismo, doesn't it? Also note that I said horsepower and torque per pound is what matters.

 

[Poverty]

Sorry my mistake I overlooked that, and my racing experience is irrelevant in this point as I and I doubt you have, built a car purposefully for taking around the track.

 

[Ghost C]

Would you like to bet money on that?

 

[Poverty]

Go on then what have you built, and unless you had a very healthy budget I know that your engine would have probably been a torque monster.

 

[Ghost C]

What class of racing do you want? Drift, drag, autocross, superlap, hell - show even? Be specific. I've had my hands on 9 & 10 second drag cars, nigh undefeatable autocross cars, and several drift cars. I didn't do everything on those cars, but at least all the stuff that was done right (with a grinder and a welder!)

I'm in the works of getting a 280ZX to build specifically for the drift circuit right now, although I'm not sure that it's going to work out. We're (That's right, we, as in my tuning company) building an FC RX-7 for drift competition as well as preparing our autocross, circuit, and drag cars for fall competition. I build cars for a living. I eat, sleep, breathe, ****, get sick, and throw up cars. I'd probably hate my life if I didn't get to walk outside every morning and see cars on jack stands waiting to be modified.

Note that the first car I've been building for racing purposes with a V8 is my DeVille for Superlap competition, and if you think I have a healthy budget, you're wrong. I probably have less of a racing budget than your monthly food budget.

 

[Famine]

In what class would you be racing a one-and-a-half-ton FWD car stuffed full of speakers? And what in the name of zombie mutant leopard ninjas from hell is an "electronic supercharger"?

Seriously, tell me how a 250hp blown 2-litre boxer 4 isn't better, in terms of power to weight and torque to weight, than a 250hp 4.9 litre V8 with cast iron head? Surely you'd agree that the less engine you can get the power out of the better, for hp/lb AND ftlb/lb?

 

[Ghost C]

In what class would you be racing a one-and-a-half-ton FWD car stuffed full of speakers?

Seriously, tell me how a 250hp blown 2-litre boxer 4 isn't better, in terms of power to weight and torque to weight, than a 250hp 4.9 litre V8 with cast iron head? Surely you'd agree that the less engine you can get the power out of the better, for hp/lb AND ftlb/lb?

It's got 4 4.5" speakers, I don't think that qualifies as stuffed full (My aftermarket stereo setup is over 10lbs lighter than OEM ). But I believe in most of the Superlap competitions they hold in the US, I sit pretty in Street FWD or it's equivelant. I'm in E-Modified in autocross, hence, I don't autocross.

Yeah, sure, you could probably do more and do it better with a Porsche. But it's been done 1,000 times and nobody gives a second thought when they see a fast Porsche - Porsches are supposed to be fast. However, how often do you see someone doing the same thing in a fifteen year old Sedan DeVille, you take notice. I've literally had people come up to me and tell me that they've heard of my car through friends/forums and that they thought it was cool.

C'mon, iron heads, that's all you could come up with? 1/3 of them are made out of aluminum, thanks to the retarded design where part of my heads are actually my intake manifold.

 

[Poverty]

Note that the first car I've been building for racing purposes with a V8 is my DeVille for Superlap competition

Well I cant argue with your commitment to the sport, but doesnt watching kids blow pass you in theyre 4 pot hothatches get you a tad bit demoralised?

 

[Famine]

It's got 4 4.5" speakers, I don't think that qualifies as stuffed full (My aftermarket stereo setup is over 10lbs lighter than OEM ). But I believe in most of the Superlap competitions they hold in the US, I sit pretty in Street FWD or it's equivelant. I'm in E-Modified in autocross, hence, I don't autocross.

If you're racing, why speakers at all?

Yeah, sure, you could probably do more and do it better with a Porsche. But it's been done 1,000 times and nobody gives a second thought when they see a fast Porsche - Porsches are supposed to be fast. However, how often do you see someone doing the same thing in a fifteen year old Sedan DeVille, you take notice. I've literally had people come up to me and tell me that they've heard of my car through friends/forums and that they thought it was cool.

C'mon, iron heads, that's all you could come up with? 1/3 of them are made out of aluminum, thanks to the retarded design where part of my heads are actually my intake manifold.

Don't care. Question was can you seriously say that a 250hp blown 2-litre boxer 4 isn't better, in terms of power to weight and torque to weight, than a 250hp 4.9 litre V8 with cast iron head? Surely you'd agree that the less engine you can get the power out of the better, for hp/lb AND ftlb/lb?


And what IS an "electronic supercharger"?

 

[Ghost C]

Yeah, except that it doesn't happen. My car may be heavy, but it's also got 51/49 weight distribution, and it doesn't torque steer like your average FWD. I've also got the same brakes as 93-97 Camaros and Trans Ams. And a metric ton of torque. Oh, and my car actually has -useable- power! What a concept - I don't have to strain my motor to 7,000rpm to get power out of it.

Edit:

Don't care. Question was can you seriously say that a 250hp blown 2-litre boxer 4 isn't better, in terms of power to weight and torque to weight, than a 250hp 4.9 litre V8 with cast iron head? Surely you'd agree that the less engine you can get the power out of the better, for hp/lb AND ftlb/lb?


And what IS an "electronic supercharger"?

In response to the unquoted question, because I still use it as a daily driver.

And no, I don't agree that the less engine you use the better - Less weight, yes. Less engine, no. But considering that my motor weighs 371lbs with all accessories attached, and full of oil, I tend to think it does fairly well for one of them thurr Murrican V8's.

An electronic supercharger is something that was great for the fifteen minutes it worked before it exploded into a ball of sparks and fire. The concept has been thrown out the window for more than a year now, why people continue to hold on to it as their hold-out insult for my car baffles me.

 

[Race Idiot]

However, how often do you see someone doing the same thing in a fifteen year old Sedan DeVille, you take notice.

Why do you need people to notice you though? So you're like 'HAY GUYZ LOOK AT ME IM TOTALLY AUTOCROSSING THIS CAR LMAO ISNT IT COOL PLZ NOTICE ME I AM A TOTALLY UNIQUE SNOWFLAKE THAT AUTOCROSSES A FWD CADDILAC' when you could have spent your money on something more effective at autocross but without being noticed doing it.

 

[Ghost C]

Why do you need people to notice you though? So you're like 'HAY GUYZ LOOK AT ME IM TOTALLY AUTOCROSSING THIS CAR LMAO ISNT IT COOL PLZ NOTICE ME I AM A TOTALLY UNIQUE SNOWFLAKE THAT AUTOCROSSES A FWD CADDILAC' when you could have spent your money on something more effective at autocross but without being noticed doing it.

Why do I want people to notice the car? Because it's a rolling billboard for my company and my tuning. Which do you consider more impressive - A car that's, let's say for simplicity's sake, running 12's that 5,000 people have run 12's and better in, or a car that NOBODY has ever run 12's with, nobody expects to run 12's, and does it without a problem. I know which one I'd notice first and I know which one everyone else notices.

I've spent less than $2,000 on my car, including purchase price, and parts that aren't even on the car yet. That includes tires and fluid changes, and all other regular maintenance. Find me something more cost effective.

 

[Poverty]

I don't have to strain my motor to 7,000rpm to get power out of it.

Your lucky that the only NA hothatch I can think of right now with around 200hp is the honda which does need to be pushed. If only BMW made hothatches.

But the Golf GTIs max torque is right down low in the rev range.

Why do I want people to notice the car? Because it's a rolling billboard for my company and my tuning. Which do you consider more impressive

I thought your suspension was SHOT. How can that be good marketing.

 

[Race Idiot]

Why do I want people to notice the car? Because it's a rolling billboard for my company and my tuning. Which do you consider more impressive - A car that's, let's say for simplicity's sake, running 12's that 5,000 people have run 12's and better in, or a car that NOBODY has ever run 12's with, nobody expects to run 12's, and does it without a problem. I know which one I'd notice first and I know which one everyone else notices.

I've spent less than $2,000 on my car, including purchase price, and parts that aren't even on the car yet. That includes tires and fluid changes, and all other regular maintenance. Find me something more cost effective.

So basically from the sounds of it your car is competitive in it's class and cheaper than anything else! I just wonder why other people havent realised this vastly superior automobile is so good at autocross years ago?

 

[Ghost C]

Your lucky that the only NA hothatch I can think of right now with around 200hp is the honda which does need to be pushed. If only BMW made hothatches.

But the Golf GTIs max torque is right down low in the rev range.

Let me know when it makes so much torque that GTI's are launching off of dynos in second gear below 3,500rpm.

I thought your suspension was SHOT. How can that be good marketing.

I have one busted strut. The car's also parked and waiting for new parts, nowhere near a racetrack. It'll probably be sitting the entire rest of the 2006 season out because of all the orders I have for parts, and all the cars waiting in line to get work done on them, which is disheartening because I wanted to go run the Redline Time Attack at my home track.

So basically from the sounds of it your car is competitive in it's class and cheaper than anything else! I just wonder why other people havent realised this vastly superior automobile is so good at autocross years ago?

I thought I made it obvious that I don't autocross when I said "I don't autocross". I got a good deal on the car, and I get great deals on parts because I know where to look and who to buy from. It also helps that I can get all the aftermarket parts for the car on the cheap, cause I make them

Now, gentlemen, if we're done trying to bash the Cadillac, we can go back on topic, eh? This was never meant to be ANOTHER discussion about my freaking car.

 

[Poverty]

Let me know when it makes so much torque that GTI's are launching off of dynos in second gear below 3,500rpm.

How much torque and hp does your car produce with its great big 4.9liter engine?

 

[Ghost C]

I don't do dyno numbers, because I don't get into e-penis length contest about who's car is bigger and badder*. I was talking about stock 4.9 cars that have gotten on the dyno.

*Yeah, it may seem like I do even without dyno numbers, but defending my car against naysayers, I feel, is different. If you think I'm wrong, take this bread and eat it, for it is my body. In other words, eat me.

 

[Famine]

And no, I don't agree that the less engine you use the better - Less weight, yes. Less engine, no.

So, choice. 250hp 2 litre Boxer 4 or 250hp 4.9 V8 ("With cast iron heads!") in your car, if you had to pick (assume that the rest of the car was identical and the plumbing and fitting would all be done by magic)?

But considering that my motor weighs 371lbs with all accessories attached, and full of oil, I tend to think it does fairly well for one of them thurr Murrican V8's.

Woo! That's 1.49hp/kg, by my reckoning. A standard Rover K-series 4-pot weighs in at less than 100kg (just about 212lb) and can throw out up to FOUR hp/lb nasp in proper racing trim (1.9 in its most severe road application that I can currently think of).

As it happens, the S2000 puts out 1.5hp/kg fully dressed as standard, but you don't like that because of something about revving or something.

An electronic supercharger is something that was great for the fifteen minutes it worked before it exploded into a ball of sparks and fire. The concept has been thrown out the window for more than a year now, why people continue to hold on to it as their hold-out insult for my car baffles me.

I wasn't insulting - I was asking. It's just that you mention it on your CarDomain page and I haven't heard of one outside those $50 ones you buy on eBay which do the square root of chuff all - and I didn't think someone who had an engineering company would be suckered into buying something like that. I figured it must be a different one I'd not heard of.

I don't do dyno numbers,

Why does your company website say 225hp/4100rpm and 300lbft/3000rpm? And your CarDomain page says 250hp/4100rpm. If you don't do dyno numbers, why quote "estimated" dyno numbers?

Which do you consider more impressive - A car that's, let's say for simplicity's sake, running 12's that 5,000 people have run 12's and better in, or a car that NOBODY has ever run 12's with, nobody expects to run 12's, and does it without a problem.

12s? From a 250hp/3200lb FWD car? Timing slips please.

Now, gentlemen, if we're done trying to bash the Cadillac,

No-one's bashing - several people are just asking you questions about it.

 

[Race Idiot]

I thought I made it obvious that I don't autocross when I said "I don't autocross". I got a good deal on the car, and I get great deals on parts because I know where to look and who to buy from. It also helps that I can get all the aftermarket parts for the car on the cheap, cause I make them

Now, gentlemen, if we're done trying to bash the Cadillac, we can go back on topic, eh? This was never meant to be ANOTHER discussion about my freaking car.

Sure fine I will never doubt tha fastest 4.9 DeVille in da wuld mang I can't wait to see all the things you win in whatever you do with it. Also if you start making swaybars and coilovers for MR2's i'll totally buy some ok.

Anyway, on topic the focus was never realy designed to be effective at running the 1/4 mile and was designed to be a hatch with slightly sporty intentions. If you want to make it handle better thats fine, it's never going to be a great platform for raw speed unless you want to spend a stupid amount of money for it, instead of buying something more effective in what you want to do with it.

 

[Ghost C]

So, choice. 250hp 2 litre Boxer 4 or 250hp 4.9 V8 ("With cast iron heads!") in your car, if you had to pick (assume that the rest of the car was identical and the plumbing and fitting would all be done by magic)?

I'd pick the 4.9 for it's factory forged pistons and rods, then throw 5psi from a turbo at it and watch it make 350whp and 400+ft/lbs.

Woo! That's 1.49hp/kg, by my reckoning. A standard Rover K-series 4-pot weighs in at less than 100kg (just about 212lb) and can throw out up to FOUR hp/lb nasp in proper racing trim (1.9 in its most severe road application that I can currently think of).

As it happens, the S2000 puts out 1.5hp/kg fully dressed as standard, but you don't like that because of something about revving or something.

And how much does the said 4 cylinder engine cost to get to over 800hp? Probably alot more than it's worth to me.

And no, I don't like the S2000. It makes 170whp at 8,000rpm, and doesn't actually start to make any real horsepower until 6,500-7,000rpm. I like my broad and flat torque curve, and my steadily rising horsepower curve. The S2000's dyno charts look something like this - ________/

I wasn't insulting - I was asking. It's just that you mention it on your CarDomain page and I haven't heard of one outside those $50 ones you buy on eBay which do the square root of chuff all - and I didn't think someone who had an engineering company would be suckered into buying something like that. I figured it must be a different one I'd not heard of.

The said item in question had a modified electric engine, pushing around 8hp and flowing something around 650cfm through it, making a little bit of boost at low revs and less by redline. It ended up exploding from being over-oiled and over-run. We ran it until it smoked, then we'd oil it and let it air dry or try and cool it off with ice packs, then run it more. It went out in a fireball of glory.

Look up the leafblower dyno video on Streetfire, and imagine something that had more than double the horsepower of the leafblower they used, plus the massive torque associated with electric motors, and a bigger compressor wheel.

Edit: Said video - Clicky

12s? From a 250hp/3200lb FWD car? Timing slips please.

I didn't mean my car runs 12's. I was just asking which would be more impressive, purely hypothetical.

 

[Poverty]

I have one busted strut. The car's also parked and waiting for new parts, nowhere near a racetrack. It'll probably be sitting the entire rest of the 2006 season out because of all the orders I have for parts, and all the cars waiting in line to get work done on them, which is disheartening because I wanted to go run the Redline Time Attack at my home track.

Hold on... So one minute your car is more comfortable than any mercedes in your mind, and then the next its beating out hothatches with better power/weight ratio.

Hell mercedes only just figured out how to make 2 ton mercs post respectable laptimes, but it seems like you got there first, at a fraction of the price.

 

[Sage]

Well, this went to hell quickly.

Let’s steer towards JCE3000GT’s original point of discussion, ’kay?

 

[Ghost C]

Hold on... So one minute your car is more comfortable than any mercedes in your mind, and then the next its beating out hothatches with better power/weight ratio.

Hell mercedes only just figured out how to make 2 ton mercs post respectable laptimes, but it seems like you got there first, at a fraction of the price.

When I speak about Cadillacs in threads other than ones where I'm directly speaking about my car, I'm talking about normal Cadillacs. Unmodified, totally stock, regular Cadillacs. When my car is finished, it will bear no resemblance to anything even close to being considered stock. And while my suspension is still (mostly) stock, my car still rides better than most other luxury cars.

Which hot hatch has a better power to weight and torque to weight ratio than my car, exactly? (Edit: Please don't answer in this thread. PM me or make a new thread if you want to respond.) My car is not undefeatable, nor is it made of unobtainium. Modified Miatas will spank me and make me call them daddy on the track, same with Evo's and STi's, and a wide range of other popular import cars. Race prepared Civics, Integras and the like can out-handle my car and I can keep up by virtue of having a more responsive engine with more power (generally, there are always exceptions and there is always someone faster).

My car doesn't weigh two tons, either. It barely weighs more than most modern hot hatches.

Edit: Indeed, Sage, indeed. I'm going to bow out of this thread as I seriously doubt I'll be able to respond without throwing it OT again.

I leave the original poster with this, best I can find - Marcy Motorsport

 

[YSSMAN]

...Back to JCE3000GT's Mustang situation...

Have you had much seat time in the Mustangs you are thinking about? I had the oppertunity to drive an '03 SVT Cobra, and I didn't care much for the seating position in relationship to the shifter. Granted, it wassent horribly bad, but it would take some getting used to. Going from something that is truely driver oriented like my Jetta to the Mustang was strange enough...

But generally speaking, that was my only problem with that car other than it was a Ford (lol). They are nice cars, and for the money, you really cannot go wrong, IMO. The only thing better is a Camaro or Firebird, but given my obvious preference twards GM models, thats just me...

 

[a6m5]

You know, one thing I do hate about that generation Mustang..... that horrid interior. One of the worst looking interiors IMO.

 

[IMADreamer]

Many motoring publications would disagree, as cars that achieve over 100hp/liter and are NA are widely celebrated.

Really? I haven't seen that too terribly much really. Yes it gets mentioned but honestly I don't see any headlines "100HP/liter!!!! monster!!!!!" However cars like Lingenfelters Vettes, Hennesseys Vipers, and the monster Supras out there make huge media splashes and always end up on the cover of two or three magazines with headlines like "WORLDS FASTEST STREET CAR!!!" or "1000HP MONSTER".

Honestly, if you don't think 1000hp is impressive I have to question your knowledge for cars. 1000hp is amazing in any car or engine, no matter the size.

hp/liter is seriously a ricer trump card when talking smack about their cars. You are better then that aren't you?

 

[Sniffs]

*is tempted to take the lot of you by the ears, but wants to see the Mods do that anyway*


you may have to talk to Cosworth for the likes of two liter mods.
most american made 4 pots are still pushrod jobs aren't they?
it's sometimes cheaper just to replace the blinkin car than it is to either fix it or supe it up.
Brits: remember...we've been moving masses if steel around for decades in our vehicles, and now, masses of required by the US Gov't safety equipment. we need the giants to make sixty/100 in less than 10 seconds or get run over by our lorries. which any american running OUR motorways can confirm. some truckers are total prats on the road

i've never even SAT in a mustang, a corvette, etc. so you guys are lucky to even be considring one

you want hard? try finding parts for ford's 3 liter over here

runner in Oslo: can you get ahold of DRS? Dihatsu's in house tuning shop? BTW, they sent the Charade AND a relabeled Terios over here (dunno if it was the Kid or not, but it looks like it), and they flopped.

 

[JCE]

...Back to JCE3000GT's Mustang situation...

Have you had much seat time in the Mustangs you are thinking about? I had the oppertunity to drive an '03 SVT Cobra, and I didn't care much for the seating position in relationship to the shifter. Granted, it wassent horribly bad, but it would take some getting used to. Going from something that is truely driver oriented like my Jetta to the Mustang was strange enough...

But generally speaking, that was my only problem with that car other than it was a Ford (lol). They are nice cars, and for the money, you really cannot go wrong, IMO. The only thing better is a Camaro or Firebird, but given my obvious preference twards GM models, thats just me...

I've driven every generation Mustang and actually I do agree that the shifter position is all wrong in the 1999-2004 Mustang, but I can get over than easily with a little throttle. My problem is going to be the seats...I just can't stand American car seats. For supposedly being the fattest country the seats here aren't very supportive for me. I'm probably going to swap out the drivers seat for something from a European automaker...probably Audi or Merc. They tend to have the most comfy of German seats. A possible solution to the seating position is to physically cut the pedal length in half and scoot the seat up so the shifter will be in a normal location in conjuction with the body. 👍

You know, one thing I do hate about that generation Mustang..... that horrid interior. One of the worst looking interiors IMO.

Actually I find the F-body interiors as the worst interiors ever in a sports coupe...and I owned one. The Mustang's interior wasn't good, but it wasn't that bad either.