Best Engine Offered In Australian Car? - Page 3

Powdered Toast Man · 31-12-2008, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnews

Selective results... They sent Moffat and the HO to take on the R/Ts on the more testing NZ tracks and they failed. You can't compare the efforts of Ford and Holden on the racetrack with the shoestring Valiant efforts in Australia. I think the Charger took something like 8 NZ Touring Car Titles in a row or something...?

I think it had something to do with the tighter NZ tracks like you mention. The Hemis didn't have the legs to beat the Ford/Holden/Chev V8s down the long straights on aussie circuits but had the balls to whip them at tighter, lower top speed tracks.

Actually I would love to see some footage of some NZ touring car races, you dont get to see the Chargers too much in the Aussie stuff.

FPV8U · 31-12-2008, 01:39 PM

Kills me to say it but the I6T..

Im a V8 Guy and love My Boss but im honest enough with myself to realise the I6T is the better buy if your going to outright performance or BFYB Modifications.

And if i was really honest with myself i'd be really pushing myself to buy a V8 again if i got an FG.. something about having a car capable of running a 12.xx and looking and sounding standard.

JAYBA · 31-12-2008, 02:09 PM

I would say the i6T but ONLY because it comes with a hair dryer on it...

If the boss's & ls motors came with hair dryers/super chargers then power output per capacity would wuold be beyond the 4litre.

A 4.0l t fuel consumption is not much better than a boss or ls motor when used at over 40% of its ability.

as to the previous posts asking which motors can do 10sec with an uncracked engine, well the boss can with less psi than a I6t, and a boss 315 makes more power per cubic inch than a 4L Turbo...

if bang for buck is your game from factory mods then I6t is a winner and LS motors are a good second.

mcnews · 31-12-2008, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4Vman

2 races in NZ and Moffats car quit while leading...
What about the 3 years prior in Australia on all our own bigger tracks? Dozens of races over many years.. nada, zilch...
Face it, the thing never won any title here,where car manufacturers cared, WHERE IT COUNTS, it was only around a few years so in my mind its just another "could have would have NEVER DID"...........

Doesn't matter to me at all. Stock for stock the E49 was quicker, every time any car mag put a GT up against the R/T the Charger was quicker in eveything but top speed.

Race teams with all the tuning and money in the world might have made things different. But stock against stock is what I thought we were talking about.

Bossxr8 · 31-12-2008, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAYBA

I would say the i6T but ONLY because it comes with a hair dryer on it...

If the boss's & ls motors came with hair dryers/super chargers then power output per capacity would wuold be beyond the 4litre.

A 4.0l t fuel consumption is not much better than a boss or ls motor when used at over 40% of its ability.

as to the previous posts asking which motors can do 10sec with an uncracked engine, well the boss can with less psi than a I6t, and a boss 315 makes more power per cubic inch than a 4L Turbo...

if bang for buck is your game from factory mods then I6t is a winner and LS motors are a good second.

So an F6 with 310kw from 4 litres makes less power per cubic inch than a Boss 315 makes from 5.4 litres?

FPV8U · 31-12-2008, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAYBA

I would say the i6T but ONLY because it comes with a hair dryer on it...

If the boss's & ls motors came with hair dryers/super chargers then power output per capacity would wuold be beyond the 4litre.

A 4.0l t fuel consumption is not much better than a boss or ls motor when used at over 40% of its ability.

as to the previous posts asking which motors can do 10sec with an uncracked engine, well the boss can with less psi than a I6t, and a boss 315 makes more power per cubic inch than a 4L Turbo...

if bang for buck is your game from factory mods then I6t is a winner and LS motors are a good second.

Agreed the 4.6L S/C in the Cobra's released in 03/04 is just as impressive to me as the I6T.

But.. unfortunitly we don't have a Blown 8 in a Australian built car so there is no comparison..

mcnews · 31-12-2008, 02:27 PM

And then of course if we talk truly Australian made engines then it only comes down the sixes.

The F6 with Aussie built engine but I would imagine but am not professing to know as factual that some of the components are foreign such as turbo and injectors?

The Hemi had Webers sourced from Italy but as far as I know that was it.

And then as to drivetrain well the only Aussie fast car with an all Aussie drivetrain was the Charger. Aussie engine, gearbox and diff.

Gobes32 · 31-12-2008, 02:30 PM

We are getting side tracked here, there are too many variables at play. If a motor had track success then that's great but the chassis has something to do with that as well as the driver behind the wheel.

The most important thing is are we looking for the best motor (fastest) or the best motor to live with (servicing, ease of tune etc.) ?????????

My votes Best Motor: XW & XY Clevelands (fastest four door in the world)

Best to live with: Barra I6, (time will tell how reliable they are, but taxi's have already clocked half million clicks and all drivers complain about the box, not the motor.)

4Vman · 31-12-2008, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnews

But stock against stock is what I thought we were talking about.

Yes, that's what i mean. 1971 Bathurst is the ultimate "Stock V Stock'.. it was the last truely showroom standard production Bathurst....
Oh, by the way, your E49 is a 1972 model.. the Phase 3 was a 1971 model.. i wonder how your E49 would have fared against the 1972 Phase 4...
One was built but never tested by mags...

I Admire you're resilience in the face of overwhelming opposing evidence trev!!! Its all good!

JAYBA · 31-12-2008, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

So an F6 with 310kw from 4 litres makes less power per cubic inch than a Boss 315 makes from 5.4 litres?

that was a typo I was reffering to na boss vs na 4.0l

4Vman · 31-12-2008, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gobes32

We are getting side tracked here, there are too many variables at play. If a motor had track success then that's great but the chassis has something to do with that as well as the driver behind the wheel.

The most important thing is are we looking for the best motor (fastest) or the best motor to live with (servicing, ease of tune etc.) ?????????

My votes Best Motor: XW & XY Clevelands (fastest four door in the world)

Best to live with: Barra I6, (time will tell how reliable they are, but taxi's have already clocked half million clicks and all drivers complain about the box, not the motor.)

You cant compare motors without taking into account the vehicles that they powered, how can a motor be fast or successful without a vehicle for it to drive!!!

mcnews · 31-12-2008, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Yes, that's what i mean. 1971 Bathurst is the ultimate "Stock V Stock'.. it was the last truely showroom standard production Bathurst....
Oh, by the way, your E49 is a 1972 model.. the Phase 3 was a 1971 model.. i wonder how your E49 would have fared against the 1972 Phase 4...
One was built but never tested by mags...

I Admire you're resilience in the face of overwhelming opposing evidence trev!!! Its all good!

I do know the E49 was a 1972 model of course. The E38 only had a three speed because Chrysler Australia was waiting for BW to locally make a gearbox strong enough for the full monty sixpack.

And if you want to talk what ifs.... How about the sixpack 340 that had been testing in two mules....

mcnews · 31-12-2008, 02:39 PM

And same drivers in same cars etc. is just how I would want the cars compared. Just as the car magazines of the time did. When as I stated before the Falcons got comprehensively spanked in every contest apart from top speed.

4Vman · 31-12-2008, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnews

And same drivers in same cars etc. is just how I would want the cars compared. Just as the car magazines of the time did. When as I stated before the Falcons got comprehensively spanked in every contest apart from top speed.

and apart from lap times and victories!!!!

This could go on for hours... but we're digressing a bit.. Back to topic.

mcnews · 31-12-2008, 02:44 PM

Yes laptimes recorded in standard cars by magazine testers :-) Let's compare...

I guess I just like Aussie stuff too much. Preferring the Aussie built engine, gearbox and diff car to the imported yank iron engine, box and diff :-)

JAYBA · 31-12-2008, 02:51 PM

if talking n/a aspirated i'd say the boss 315 is a cracker for its capacity,

i dont think any of the others keep up as far as power per cubic inch!!

and they are proven to be a reliable donk, & economy is par with its competitors...

Escort_RPDriver · 31-12-2008, 02:54 PM

why was the E49 slower than the E38 was it becouse it had a 4 speed becouse im looking at 0-400m time and it say 14.4, if so would the phase 3 have been quicker with a 3 speed?.

This is not me picking on the charger it is a legitimate question

**Falcon Coupe** · 31-12-2008, 02:58 PM

To reiterate:

What is the best engine ever offered in an Aussie car in terms of power, economy, reliability, low maintenance and cheap mod costs.

We are far from it.

gtfpv · 31-12-2008, 03:01 PM

OMFG !!!!! once again we have gone into which one is faster.
the i6t has faults and is not a logevity engine . the bosses are not yet old enough to be proven and anything toyota, or subaru has produced in petrol guise is lucky to get over 300 000kms .
well well well . the inline 4 litre na 6 . as i stated out does them all . 1 000 000km anyone . this engine blitzes all other varients . FULL STOP.

now if you want the fastest . i think it is in a top fueler somewhere in the united states . howver it needs rebuilding evry 400 metres.

Mr Hardware · 31-12-2008, 03:01 PM

Shoot me down in flames, but i reckon the Holden Ecotec V6. Fast, cheap, strong and reliable. It is bettered in a few areas by the EL/AU I6, but is still a very good motor. I like driving them, they are punchy and provide for a sportier feel than the I6. Don't get me wrong, I love the I6 for its smoothness and longevity and torquiness that the ecotec can't match, but the power vs fuel economy vs reliabiliy vs low maintenance vs cheap mods, i'd have to say the Ecotec V6, April 1995 - August 2004.

mcnews · 31-12-2008, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Escort_RPDriver

why was the E49 slower than the E38 was it becouse it had a 4 speed becouse im looking at 0-400m time and it say 14.4, if so would the phase 3 have been quicker with a 3 speed?.

This is not me picking on the charger it is a legitimate question

The E49 tests ranged from 14.1 to 14.5 at over 100mph. The E38 in most tests ran around 14.8 with the three speed.

0-60mph in the E49 was around 6.1.

I particurally liked one review where they compared it to the 350 Monaro and said the E49 could get to 100mph and stop again before the Monaro could get to 100mph :-) And that certainly wasn't because of the Chargers brakes, lol.

mcnews · 31-12-2008, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Hardware

Shoot me down in flames, but i reckon the Holden Ecotec V6. Fast, cheap, strong and reliable. It is bettered in a few areas by the EL/AU I6, but is still a very good motor. I like driving them, they are punchy and provide for a sportier feel than the I6. Don't get me wrong, I love the I6 for its smoothness and longevity and torquiness that the ecotec can't match, but the power vs fuel economy vs reliabiliy vs low maintenance vs cheap mods, i'd have to say the Ecotec V6, April 1995 - August 2004.

It is crime against humanity that, 'THAT' engine was ever inflicted into any car. It is an abomination.

Mr Hardware · 31-12-2008, 03:11 PM

mate, put forward your own opinion, don't knock mine.

mcnews · 31-12-2008, 03:12 PM

Fair enough, I was just shocked into action at the thought as I rate as one of the most horrible engines in history so that you thought it was one of the best floored me.

Escort_RPDriver · 31-12-2008, 03:24 PM

imo the ecotec was a good engine the oldmans vs is going of 500,000km now and hes had to replace a waterpump he wants to get a new xr6T but hes not geting rid of the vs becouse its the best car hes ever owned and its on gas.

its not the best engine out there but for bang for you buck power fro say a torana best there is and its a much better engine than the alloytec IMO.

you can also get a 4.2L strocker ecotec.

JAYBA · 31-12-2008, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Hardware

mate, put forward your own opinion, don't knock mine.

Its a forum for discussion....

how on earth you think your ecotec is superior for modifications, efficiency, power & reliabilty is not a matter of opinion its a matter of BS. its trumped in every way by the straight 4.0l donk,

mcnews · 31-12-2008, 03:38 PM

My opinion on the ecotec is based overall on the NVH of the engine. I know they hang together reasonably well but every time I stick the boot into one I wait for conrods to come out of the side such is the diabolical din that offends my aural senses. It is so bad that it offends my mechanical sensibilities to actually rev them. But others seem to love them so perhaps its mechanical pitch just grates on my senses more than others but I found them truly ghastly. And it is not a Ford v Holden thing for me, I am simply not that one eyed.

Escort_RPDriver · 31-12-2008, 03:39 PM

it all a matter of opinion like i said the ecotecs can be quite reliable the olds has done 500,000km with only a water pump.

I edmit the 4.0L is a better engine and mr hardwear never said it was a better engine read his post proberly he said that it is bested in alot of ways but the ef-au 4.0L you have to also consiter when it was first ued the VN V6 was more reliabel than the EA 3.9L

GTP290 · 31-12-2008, 04:08 PM

To be fair to the E49 it was put together on a shoe string and It was heading for Bathurst victory in 1972, while it was in the lead, the car pitted for its routine pit stop to change tyres and fuel, only to have the tyre changer take off the old hot wheel nuts and tried to put on new cold wheel nuts, which offcourse didnot screw on properly because hot metal expands, so they lost copious amounts of the time in the pits which cost them certain victory, baring that it was a fantastic engine, no doubt!

4Vman · 31-12-2008, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTP290

To be fair to the E49 it was put together on a shoe string and It was heading for Bathurst victory in 1972, while it was in the lead, the car pitted for its routine pit stop to change tyres and fuel, only to have the tyre changer take off the old hot wheel nuts and tried to put on new cold wheel nuts, which offcourse didnot screw on properly because hot metal expands, so they lost copious amounts of the time in the pits which cost them certain victory, baring that it was a fantastic engine, no doubt!

certain victory...

How much time did Moffat loose when he spun off the track and crashed in the wet while leading????

There's a sob story or 2 in every race, the XU1 won in 72 fair and square, french was second in a Phase 3..