Ford Mustang Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 42 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
114 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Okay, Ford rates the engine at 210hp at the crankshaft, and I've seen it dyno'd at 185hp at the brakes.

Ford Cologne engine
185bhp / 4.0L = 46.25bhp per liter

Honda F20C engine (S2000)
240bhp / 2.0L = 120.00bhp per liter

Now, despite those figures I like my Mustang, but really, does Ford have their head in the sand?

Sometimes when I'm driving around a parking lot my engine sounds like a truck, I'm pretty sure that's all they did, throw a truck engine in there, but I didn't buy a Mustang to tow crap around.

Hey Ford, how about another 12 valves, 2 more camshafts, and some variable timing for Pete's sake!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,314 Posts
OMG... where do i start....

Yeah, the Honda may make more HP but dig a little deeper...

That 240 HP is at 7800 RPM!!! Talk about a whiny motorcycle sound!

The more important measurement is TORQUE! The Honda makes only 167 ft/lbs at 6800 RPM! Can you say gutless wonder! Look at the 4.0L, it make 240 ft/lbs at only 3500 RPM!!!

As far as the Colonge motor being a truck motor... it's been around for a VERY VERY LONG time... and has been in a number of vehicles...

Also noticed a problem with your comparison... for your math you used 185 RWHP for the 4.0L but used 240 HP for the Honda??? You need use the crank numbers for BOTH cars...

And finally...

"Horsepower sells cars, torque wins races" - Carroll Shelby

Remember... Torque is what pushes your butt back in the seat... if you want a high reving, no guts, weed wacker motor, trade your Mustang in for the Honda...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
263 Posts
The torque is what makes the Mustang fun to drive. I couldn't care less how many horsepower a Honda has.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,224 Posts
thats also why my friends 330 rwhp G35 wins by a car length compared to my 210 rwhp mustang :hihi:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
119 Posts
I can understand the frustration of Ford not putting monster engines in their cars right now, but that will change when the new Camaro hits the market. Ford hasn't had any competition the past several years, and got complacent. However, they have made it easy for all of us to improve over the stock with very little effort while they continued to dominate the market by selling the Mustang to everyone. This is a win win situation. Ford sells more cars, and we can customize the car to our heart's desire. Besides, if the rumors are true about the turbo V6 coming out in 2009 ... we will have a fire breathing 400hp V6 twin turbo with over 30mpg.

FYI - I just raced my boss in his Infiniti (don't know the model). He claims 321hp, but I kicked his ass. Torque is king.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,224 Posts
I can understand the frustration of Ford not putting monster engines in their cars right now, but that will change when the new Camaro hits the market. Ford hasn't had any competition the past several years, and got complacent. However, they have made it easy for all of us to improve over the stock with very little effort while they continued to dominate the market by selling the Mustang to everyone. This is a win win situation. Ford sells more cars, and we can customize the car to our heart's desire. Besides, if the rumors are true about the turbo V6 coming out in 2009 ... we will have a fire breathing 400hp V6 twin turbo with over 30mpg.

FYI - I just raced my boss in his Infiniti (don't know the model). He claims 321hp, but I kicked his ass. Torque is king.
Most likely it was a g35

http://performancepartszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/inf1.jpg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
114 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Interesting comments, I admit I've owned 2 Hondas and an Acura, so I may be thinking differently about things.

OMG... where do i start....

Yeah, the Honda may make more HP but dig a little deeper...

That 240 HP is at 7800 RPM!!! Talk about a whiny motorcycle sound!

The more important measurement is TORQUE! The Honda makes only 167 ft/lbs at 6800 RPM! Can you say gutless wonder! Look at the 4.0L, it make 240 ft/lbs at only 3500 RPM!!!
Actually, it's @ 8300RPMs. Seriously, high RPMs never bothered me when I drove Hondas, look at Formula 1 cars, they go as high as 20,000 RPMs.

As far as the Colonge motor being a truck motor... it's been around for a VERY VERY LONG time... and has been in a number of vehicles...

Also noticed a problem with your comparison... for your math you used 185 RWHP for the 4.0L but used 240 HP for the Honda??? You need use the crank numbers for BOTH cars...
Okay, I looked it up and found dyno numbers for the S2000 ranging between 183 and 201 RWHP. I guess BHP and WHP are not the same, who'd of thunk it.

Ford Cologne engine
185rwhp / 4.0L = 46.25rwhp per liter

Honda F20C engine (S2000)
240rwhp / 2.0L = 91.5rwhp per liter

So even if we go with the low number on the S2000 we're still looking at almost twice as much power per liter.

And finally...

"Horsepower sells cars, torque wins races" - Carroll Shelby

Remember... Torque is what pushes your butt back in the seat... if you want a high reving, no guts, weed wacker motor, trade your Mustang in for the Honda...
The torque is nice, sometimes when I'm driving slow and don't come to a full stop, I give it a tiny bit of gas and the car kicks like a mule. Can't do that in a Honda. :bigthumbsup
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
889 Posts
That's like being impressed because the chevy cobalt ss is supercharged. Even supercharged, the best they could get out of it is 210 hp and 200lbs torque.

Nothing beats displacement. Where these little engine rice burners are screaming at high rpm to get as much horsepower as they can, we run at a much lower rpm to get our power. Put any power mods on the vehicle and the gains are dramatically more than you get on the little engines. Look at some of the early mustangs with the 289 or the 2 barrel carbed 302's. They don't get as much power as that little honda either. The difference is that that little engine is already screaming at the hairy edge to put out everything possible whereas if you throw a couple mods on the larger displacement engines you all of a sudden have some serious hp and torque and at a much lower rpm. The larger the engine, the more power you can get out of it.

You have the capability of putting 440rwhp out of your 4.0 with heads, cams and a supercharger. You'll never see that out of a 2.0 honda.

Something else to keep in mind is the honda S2000 and the mustang are totally different classes of vehicle. It's apples and oranges. The mustang is a straight line car for launches and speed, while the S2000 is a roadster for running at high speed down twisty roads. It's engine is designed for braking hard in the corners, then getting the rpms back up quickly before the next hard corner. The S2000 is also turboed. I don't know if the figures take that into account or not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
114 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
I can understand the frustration of Ford not putting monster engines in their cars right now, but that will change when the new Camaro hits the market. Ford hasn't had any competition the past several years, and got complacent. However, they have made it easy for all of us to improve over the stock with very little effort while they continued to dominate the market by selling the Mustang to everyone. This is a win win situation. Ford sells more cars, and we can customize the car to our heart's desire. Besides, if the rumors are true about the turbo V6 coming out in 2009 ... we will have a fire breathing 400hp V6 twin turbo with over 30mpg.

FYI - I just raced my boss in his Infiniti (don't know the model). He claims 321hp, but I kicked his ass. Torque is king.
You raise some good points there. Personally, I measure the quality of engineering by a car's "all motor" performance. I think that's where things are going today. That's why I like what BMW does with their engines. Let the kids stick a turbo in it if they want.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
114 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
That's like being impressed because the chevy cobalt ss is supercharged. Even supercharged, the best they could get out of it is 210 hp and 200lbs torque.

Nothing beats displacement. Where these little engine rice burners are screaming at high rpm to get as much horsepower as they can, we run at a much lower rpm to get our power. Put any power mods on the vehicle and the gains are dramatically more than you get on the little engines. Look at some of the early mustangs with the 289 or the 2 barrel carbed 302's. They don't get as much power as that little honda either. The difference is that that little engine is already screaming at the hairy edge to put out everything possible whereas if you throw a couple mods on the larger displacement engines you all of a sudden have some serious hp and torque and at a much lower rpm. The larger the engine, the more power you can get out of it.

You have the capability of putting 440rwhp out of your 4.0 with heads, cams and a supercharger. You'll never see that out of a 2.0 honda.

Something else to keep in mind is the honda S2000 and the mustang are totally different classes of vehicle. It's apples and oranges. The mustang is a straight line car for launches and speed, while the S2000 is a roadster for running at high speed down twisty roads. It's engine is designed for braking hard in the corners, then getting the rpms back up quickly before the next hard corner. The S2000 is also turboed. I don't know if the figures take that into account or not.
I can see I still have a lot to learn, it's really a different way of thinking between the ricer and muscle cars. I appreciate Honda's engineering team, the S2000 motor was specifically designed to do certain things, whereas Ford just stuck an Explorer engine in the Mustang. No engineering, no thought whatsoever. When the next Mustang comes out, Ford is going to have to slap an even bigger engine in it, just to make it look like they've improved the performance somehow, but they haven't done anything.

Of course there is the aspect of cost, I understand that if the 4.0 had twin-cams and variable timing, it would easily cost 5 grand more. It just seems like the rest of the auto industry is headed towards base engines that are more highly tuned.

There are a lot of factors involved. I don't mean to pick on one car or another. By the way, the S2000 doesn't have a turbo, I'm sure of that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,224 Posts
Actually, the Infiniti G35 has more torque than the V6 Mustang.

it has 268 ft lbs of torque and a stock v6 has 240, my car is 3331 pounds, his g35 is 3700 and hes about 300 pounds so its a 4000 lb car pushing more horsepower then torque like most of these hondas.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
889 Posts
I test drove an S2000 last fall and it had a factory turbo in it. If I remember right, it didn't engage until it hit 9000rpm and redline was at 11,000rpm. The six speed tranny was fun to play with too. When I drove it back to the lot, I had to go slowly through town first to let the engine cool down. I'd run it so hard that there was a hot oil smell under the hood I had to get rid of.

Note to honda dealerships: Don't let a guy who shows up in a Ford Mustang hop in one of your cars and take it for a test drive by himself.

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
263 Posts
I can see I still have a lot to learn, it's really a different way of thinking between the ricer and muscle cars. I appreciate Honda's engineering team, the S2000 motor was specifically designed to do certain things, whereas Ford just stuck an Explorer engine in the Mustang. No engineering, no thought whatsoever. When the next Mustang comes out, Ford is going to have to slap an even bigger engine in it, just to make it look like they've improved the performance somehow, but they haven't done anything.

Well, all they did was put a very reliable engine with a lot of history in the V6 Mustang to make it the most powerful stock V6 Mustang ever made. I would guess there was at least a little thought in that. ;)

It was probably pretty cost effective to put an existing engine in rather than designing and engineering a new one. I have no complaints as a V6 owner.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
114 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
All right, this is freaking me out now. Did anyone else realize that BHP measures horsepower BEFORE the power loss? I assumed it was synonymous with WHP, but doing a bit of research I found out that the "brake" in BHP isn't referring to the actual brakes (those in the same vicinity as the "wheel" in WHP), but is instead is referring to some technique used to measure torque.

So only EHP (effective HP), THP (true HP), and WHP (wheel HP), are a real measure of the power at your disposal.

In other words BHP doesn't mean squat. This sort of changes everything.
 

·
Premium Member
1965 Mustang coupe
Joined
·
72,878 Posts
All right, this is freaking me out now. Did anyone else realize that BHP measures horsepower BEFORE the power loss? I assumed it was synonymous with WHP, but doing a bit of research I found out that the "brake" in BHP isn't referring to the actual brakes (those in the same vicinity as the "wheel" in WHP), but is instead is referring to some technique used to measure torque.

So only EHP (effective HP), THP (true HP), and WHP (wheel HP), are a real measure of the power at your disposal.

In other words BHP doesn't mean squat. This sort of changes everything.
There you go... It's all about the wheels. And like fishingjts said, it matters at what rpms you're making that power.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
OMG... where do i start....

Yeah, the Honda may make more HP but dig a little deeper...

That 240 HP is at 7800 RPM!!! Talk about a whiny motorcycle sound!

The more important measurement is TORQUE! The Honda makes only 167 ft/lbs at 6800 RPM! Can you say gutless wonder! Look at the 4.0L, it make 240 ft/lbs at only 3500 RPM!!!

As far as the Colonge motor being a truck motor... it's been around for a VERY VERY LONG time... and has been in a number of vehicles...

Also noticed a problem with your comparison... for your math you used 185 RWHP for the 4.0L but used 240 HP for the Honda??? You need use the crank numbers for BOTH cars...

And finally...

"Horsepower sells cars, torque wins races" - Carroll Shelby

Remember... Torque is what pushes your butt back in the seat... if you want a high reving, no guts, weed wacker motor, trade your Mustang in for the Honda...
I'm joining the Apologist's church!
I've always heard Hp gets you the higher speed in the end, if the car is capable of it, but the Tq is what gets you the Now. I think my Dakota w/h the 318 was sumthin like 235 tq and it would damn near pull wheelies in a hard launch. Used to "play" with a cple of fox body stangs after work and yes, I did get whomped on. But it was fun nonetheless. it was governerd at 118 but it wanted to go more, just started gettin a lil squirley. Any how, Torque Rules!:gringreen
 
1 - 20 of 42 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top