Ford kills Hurricane program

[RagingBITCH]

http://www.blueovalnews.com/2005/products/lane.hurricane04feb05.htm

Supposed to have been about a 6.2L engine, neighborhood of 400+ hp.

Although I'm a little disappointed, it does make sense. It also wouldn't have made sense considering their 6.8 V10 would make (probably) less power when it has 2 extra cylinders.

 

[BCYL]

considering today's gas prices, that's probably a good move...

 

[piroroadkill]

Never ceases to amaze me how little American car manufacturers get out of their engines.

There's a Mitshubishi Evo 8 which will get 400bhp from a 2 litre engine.

And my favourite car, the Koenigsegg CCR, gets 806bhp from a 4.7 litre V8.

 

[iamwiz82]

Originally posted by: piroroadkill
Never ceases to amaze me how little American car manufacturers get out of their engines.

There's a Mitshubishi Evo 8 which will get 400bhp from a 2 litre engine.

And my favourite car, the Koenigsegg CCR, gets 806bhp from a 4.7 litre V8.

What does that have to do with anything? I mean, Mitsu. trusts their engines so much that they void warranties on those who race.

 

[MasterAndCommander]

Originally posted by: piroroadkill
Never ceases to amaze me how little American car manufacturers get out of their engines.

There's a Mitshubishi Evo 8 which will get 400bhp from a 2 litre engine.

And my favourite car, the Koenigsegg CCR, gets 806bhp from a 4.7 litre V8.

That's probably with a little help from some good old Forced Induction.

American engines are about low end torque and HP.

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: piroroadkill
Never ceases to amaze me how little American car manufacturers get out of their engines.

There's a Mitshubishi Evo 8 which will get 400bhp from a 2 litre engine.

And my favourite car, the Koenigsegg CCR, gets 806bhp from a 4.7 litre V8.

That Evo uses some ridiculous amounts of fuel neighborhing around 2 gallons per minute at full throttle IIRC.....

 

[DurocShark]

Originally posted by: MasterAndCommander

Originally posted by: piroroadkill
Never ceases to amaze me how little American car manufacturers get out of their engines.

There's a Mitshubishi Evo 8 which will get 400bhp from a 2 litre engine.

And my favourite car, the Koenigsegg CCR, gets 806bhp from a 4.7 litre V8.

That's probably with a little help from some good old Forced Induction.

American engines are about low end torque and SMOOTH HP.

Fixed it for ya. Most small high HP engines are peaky and just don't FEEL as confident as a bigger V8 of the same HP.

 

[piroroadkill]

Originally posted by: iamwiz82

Originally posted by: piroroadkill
Never ceases to amaze me how little American car manufacturers get out of their engines.

There's a Mitshubishi Evo 8 which will get 400bhp from a 2 litre engine.

And my favourite car, the Koenigsegg CCR, gets 806bhp from a 4.7 litre V8.

What does that have to do with anything? I mean, Mitsu. trusts their engines so much that they void warranties on those who race.

I'm well aware that the particular example on the Evo I gave is not reliable, and I'm glad somebody fed that valid argument back.

Get the slightly lower bhp one, and it's an awesome car, though, I've seen it on top gear and clarkson was doing powerslides using just one finger on the steering wheel, and he could keep up with a Lamborghini Murceliago.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: piroroadkill

Originally posted by: iamwiz82

Originally posted by: piroroadkill
Never ceases to amaze me how little American car manufacturers get out of their engines.

There's a Mitshubishi Evo 8 which will get 400bhp from a 2 litre engine.

And my favourite car, the Koenigsegg CCR, gets 806bhp from a 4.7 litre V8.

What does that have to do with anything? I mean, Mitsu. trusts their engines so much that they void warranties on those who race.

I'm well aware that the particular example on the Evo I gave is not reliable, and I'm glad somebody fed that valid argument back.

Get the slightly lower bhp one, and it's an awesome car, though, I've seen it on top gear and clarkson was doing powerslides using just one finger on the steering wheel, and he could keep up with a Lamborghini Murceliago.

that was the 400 hp version.

it also couldn't out accelerate a econobox pos on the highway. you can't tow with a motor like that. it would not work in a 6000 lb truck.

not to mention that the car weighs in much closer to $100,000 than $20,000.

 

[MasterAndCommander]

Originally posted by: DurocShark

Originally posted by: MasterAndCommander

Originally posted by: piroroadkill
Never ceases to amaze me how little American car manufacturers get out of their engines.

There's a Mitshubishi Evo 8 which will get 400bhp from a 2 litre engine.

And my favourite car, the Koenigsegg CCR, gets 806bhp from a 4.7 litre V8.

That's probably with a little help from some good old Forced Induction.

American engines are about low end torque and SMOOTH HP.

Fixed it for ya. Most small high HP engines are peaky and just don't FEEL as confident as a bigger V8 of the same HP.

Haha Thanks There's also something to be said about the rumble of V-8. It's like music to my ears.

 

[huesmann]

There's no replacement for displacement.

Seriously, those rice engines get their high horsepower from tons of boost, and premium gas.

 

[piroroadkill]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: piroroadkill

Originally posted by: iamwiz82

Originally posted by: piroroadkill
Never ceases to amaze me how little American car manufacturers get out of their engines.

There's a Mitshubishi Evo 8 which will get 400bhp from a 2 litre engine.

And my favourite car, the Koenigsegg CCR, gets 806bhp from a 4.7 litre V8.

What does that have to do with anything? I mean, Mitsu. trusts their engines so much that they void warranties on those who race.

I'm well aware that the particular example on the Evo I gave is not reliable, and I'm glad somebody fed that valid argument back.

Get the slightly lower bhp one, and it's an awesome car, though, I've seen it on top gear and clarkson was doing powerslides using just one finger on the steering wheel, and he could keep up with a Lamborghini Murceliago.

that was the 400 hp version.

it also couldn't out accelerate a econobox pos on the highway. you can't tow with a motor like that. it would not work in a 6000 lb truck.

not to mention that the car weighs in much closer to $100,000 than $20,000.

I know it was the 400bhp in the video, but Clarkson recommended the lower 320bhp one because it didn't have as many problems.

I fully understand that there are uses for larger engines, don't get me wrong.

And if you are referring to the horrible, worst case example of turbo lag shown on top gear, well, yeah, it was designed to run at the high end of the rev counter, I mean, jesus, no s hit, if you whack it into 5th from the off, it's going to accelerate like shit, when you're relying on a huge fu cking turbo to do all the acceleration, you need to hit higher rpm to get that boost to cut in.

I also realise that this thing needs excessive regular maintenaince, because after all, this is the automotive equivalent of buying an already extremely overclocked PC.

I just find it a little piece of miracle that something so small can do what they managed to make it do.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: piroroadkill

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: piroroadkill

Originally posted by: iamwiz82

Originally posted by: piroroadkill
Never ceases to amaze me how little American car manufacturers get out of their engines.

There's a Mitshubishi Evo 8 which will get 400bhp from a 2 litre engine.

And my favourite car, the Koenigsegg CCR, gets 806bhp from a 4.7 litre V8.

What does that have to do with anything? I mean, Mitsu. trusts their engines so much that they void warranties on those who race.

I'm well aware that the particular example on the Evo I gave is not reliable, and I'm glad somebody fed that valid argument back.

Get the slightly lower bhp one, and it's an awesome car, though, I've seen it on top gear and clarkson was doing powerslides using just one finger on the steering wheel, and he could keep up with a Lamborghini Murceliago.

that was the 400 hp version.

it also couldn't out accelerate a econobox pos on the highway. you can't tow with a motor like that. it would not work in a 6000 lb truck.

not to mention that the car weighs in much closer to $100,000 than $20,000.

I know it was the 400bhp in the video, but Clarkson recommended the lower 320bhp one because it didn't have as many problems.

I fully understand that there are uses for larger engines, don't get me wrong.

And if you are referring to the horrible, worst case example of turbo lag shown on top gear, well, yeah, it was designed to run at the high end of the rev counter, I mean, jesus, no s hit, if you whack it into 5th from the off, it's going to accelerate like shit, when you're relying on a huge fu cking turbo to do all the acceleration, you need to hit higher rpm to get that boost to cut in.

So, lemme see.
You know why that small 2L gets so much power.
You know the power is NOT at take off.
You know the V8's (usually) DONT have FI.

Whats so hard to understand about not getting crazy power from the big engines? They have USABLE power, not some cheap rinky dink give teenagers an O face peak at 5000 RPM but suck everywhere else.

 

[piroroadkill]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: piroroadkill

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: piroroadkill

Originally posted by: iamwiz82

Originally posted by: piroroadkill
Never ceases to amaze me how little American car manufacturers get out of their engines.

There's a Mitshubishi Evo 8 which will get 400bhp from a 2 litre engine.

And my favourite car, the Koenigsegg CCR, gets 806bhp from a 4.7 litre V8.

What does that have to do with anything? I mean, Mitsu. trusts their engines so much that they void warranties on those who race.

I'm well aware that the particular example on the Evo I gave is not reliable, and I'm glad somebody fed that valid argument back.

Get the slightly lower bhp one, and it's an awesome car, though, I've seen it on top gear and clarkson was doing powerslides using just one finger on the steering wheel, and he could keep up with a Lamborghini Murceliago.

that was the 400 hp version.

it also couldn't out accelerate a econobox pos on the highway. you can't tow with a motor like that. it would not work in a 6000 lb truck.

not to mention that the car weighs in much closer to $100,000 than $20,000.

I know it was the 400bhp in the video, but Clarkson recommended the lower 320bhp one because it didn't have as many problems.

I fully understand that there are uses for larger engines, don't get me wrong.

And if you are referring to the horrible, worst case example of turbo lag shown on top gear, well, yeah, it was designed to run at the high end of the rev counter, I mean, jesus, no s hit, if you whack it into 5th from the off, it's going to accelerate like shit, when you're relying on a huge fu cking turbo to do all the acceleration, you need to hit higher rpm to get that boost to cut in.

So, lemme see.
You know why that small 2L gets so much power.
You know the power is NOT at take off.
You know the V8's (usually) DONT have FI.

Whats so hard to understand about not getting crazy power from the big engines? They have USABLE power, not some cheap rinky dink give teenagers an O face peak at 5000 RPM but suck everywhere else.

Ah, I was viewing it purely from a perspective of what they managed to make it do, in the constraints of 2 litres, since that's the limit for rally cars.

I'm not suggesting this is a viable alternative to proper, large engines.

I'm just saying that you can apply tuning (whether it be a little, so as not to compromise reliability, but improve performance, or a lot, as in the Evo's case, which hurts reliability) to any engine, but it seems to be the American way to just get a huge, untuned lump. To me, it's just like having unused power, but hey, it's cool. I'm not saying they are bad engines, far from it, the Koenigsegg CCR I mentioned, that can generate 806bhp, and is personally my favourite car, uses a 4.7 litre V8 with a supercharger (forced induction, yet again) so there is no doubt that you can use a larger engine, I just don't think we see the engines that commonly get used in large American cars actually used to their potential, where a smaller lump would do the same job, with better efficiency.

 

[geno]

Ford has no balls, everything big and bold they bring to the public ends up getting axed, of course with the exception of the GT. All of their cool concepts get the heave-ho. I remember seeing a previous gen V10 mustang in a magazine, and they played it up like this big muscle car, and at the end of the article they said "don't ever expect to see one on the street, this is the only one made". Why bother with so many dead-end programs? I remember all of the hype about the new Lightning, and how it was going to take the crown away from the SRT-10 Ram, oops, where'd that go? Gonzo, faded away in favor of a more conservative linup of vehicles, bleh.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: piroroadkill
a smaller lump would do the same job, with better efficiency.

uh, no. you have to burn a certain amount of fuel to get a certain amount of energy, regardless of the size of the engine. all FI does is allow you to cram more fuel into the chamber.

and there has to be a balance between balls to the wall performance, reliability, cost. the motors you're comparing the ford to cost more than the truck itself. and it is probably impossible to get 100,000 miles plus out of them. i mean, hell, a champ car makes ~850 hp from 2.65 liters, so obviously those mitsubishi guys are horrible engineers and don't know how to tune an engine, right? :roll:

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: geno
Ford has no balls, everything big and bold they bring to the public ends up getting axed, of course with the exception of the GT. All of their cool concepts get the heave-ho. I remember seeing a previous gen V10 mustang in a magazine, and they played it up like this big muscle car, and at the end of the article they said "don't ever expect to see one on the street, this is the only one made". Why bother with so many dead-end programs? I remember all of the hype about the new Lightning, and how it was going to take the crown away from the SRT-10 Ram, oops, where'd that go? Gonzo, faded away in favor of a more conservative linup of vehicles, bleh.

that mustang wasn't really sanctioned by ford. the v10 was made by some renegade engineers with some extra money in the budget.

 

[Czar]

any pics of this car?

 

[Iron Woode]

Originally posted by: piroroadkill

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: piroroadkill

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: piroroadkill

Originally posted by: iamwiz82

Originally posted by: piroroadkill
Never ceases to amaze me how little American car manufacturers get out of their engines.

There's a Mitshubishi Evo 8 which will get 400bhp from a 2 litre engine.

And my favourite car, the Koenigsegg CCR, gets 806bhp from a 4.7 litre V8.

What does that have to do with anything? I mean, Mitsu. trusts their engines so much that they void warranties on those who race.

I'm well aware that the particular example on the Evo I gave is not reliable, and I'm glad somebody fed that valid argument back.

Get the slightly lower bhp one, and it's an awesome car, though, I've seen it on top gear and clarkson was doing powerslides using just one finger on the steering wheel, and he could keep up with a Lamborghini Murceliago.

that was the 400 hp version.

it also couldn't out accelerate a econobox pos on the highway. you can't tow with a motor like that. it would not work in a 6000 lb truck.

not to mention that the car weighs in much closer to $100,000 than $20,000.

I know it was the 400bhp in the video, but Clarkson recommended the lower 320bhp one because it didn't have as many problems.

I fully understand that there are uses for larger engines, don't get me wrong.

And if you are referring to the horrible, worst case example of turbo lag shown on top gear, well, yeah, it was designed to run at the high end of the rev counter, I mean, jesus, no s hit, if you whack it into 5th from the off, it's going to accelerate like shit, when you're relying on a huge fu cking turbo to do all the acceleration, you need to hit higher rpm to get that boost to cut in.

So, lemme see.
You know why that small 2L gets so much power.
You know the power is NOT at take off.
You know the V8's (usually) DONT have FI.

Whats so hard to understand about not getting crazy power from the big engines? They have USABLE power, not some cheap rinky dink give teenagers an O face peak at 5000 RPM but suck everywhere else.

Ah, I was viewing it purely from a perspective of what they managed to make it do, in the constraints of 2 litres, since that's the limit for rally cars.

I'm not suggesting this is a viable alternative to proper, large engines.

I'm just saying that you can apply tuning (whether it be a little, so as not to compromise reliability, but improve performance, or a lot, as in the Evo's case, which hurts reliability) to any engine, but it seems to be the American way to just get a huge, untuned lump. To me, it's just like having unused power, but hey, it's cool. I'm not saying they are bad engines, far from it, the Koenigsegg CCR I mentioned, that can generate 806bhp, and is personally my favourite car, uses a 4.7 litre V8 with a supercharger (forced induction, yet again) so there is no doubt that you can use a larger engine, I just don't think we see the engines that commonly get used in large American cars actually used to their potential, where a smaller lump would do the same job, with better efficiency.

Its nice to see a rational response once and a while.

As for not using the engines at their potential is that you must take into account their intended usage. Do you really need a 600HP supercharged v6 Bonneville?

As for big engines making lots of power:

http://budgetperformance.com/articles/hemidart/

for $5000 as ordered from any Mopar dealership you got the fastest productioon car ever offered to the public.

But it's only good for drag racing.