A couple of points:
-Today’s 4 cylinder engines are as powerful as V6 engines were only a few years ago. Like others said, a test drive is the best way to tell.
-You will likely have this car for at least 5 years. If you skimp on the engine, you might have a few more bucks in your pocket when you fill up, but you’ll be disappointed every day when you push the skinny pedal and the car meagerly limps forward.
You probably don’t need a Corvette, but buy the car that puts a smile on your face. Life is too short.
Listen up, folks, History Class is beginning! It’s true that today’s 4-bangers have around the same power as V6’s of 15, and even 30 years ago. And 2.5-liter 4-cylinder engines actually were around in the late 1970s and early 1980s. My mother used to have a '79 Pontiac Sunbird hatchback with a 151 c.i. (2.5-L) “Iron Duke” 4; it had a 3" stroke and a 4" bore, but not even close to 200 h.p. Now, go back to 40 years ago, and big horsepower and torque outputs were commomplace among high performance cars, specifically the musclecars of the 1960s and early 1970s. An example of this is Chevy’s Mark-IV 454-c.i. bigblock V8 from 1970; the LS-5 version (Chevelle SS) had an advertised horsepower of 450, and the LS-6 version (Corvette) had an advertised horsepower of 465; these engines were naturally-aspirated and had solid lifters; my guess is that their actual horsepower was probably more like 550-600, due to the fact that most, if not all, musclecars had severely underrated horsepower because of insurance reasons. Another example is Mopar’s 426 Hemi V8, advertised at 425 horsepower; I once read an article that documented a number of Chrysler dyno-lab technicians reporting that these engines would often break dyno needles when they reached 600 horsepower. Chrysler’s original Hemi, the 392, which first appeared in the late 1950s, was rated for 390 h.p. Chevrolet was the first to reach the 1-horsepower-per-cubic-inch barrier in 1957 with a fuel-injected versionof the 283 smallblock.
Now, let’s see if I remember my history correctly: to the best of my knowledge from research, high-end automotive engine designs in the early 20th Century borrowed heavily from aircraft engines of the era; Lycoming, an leading manufacturer of heavy-duty airplane engines, also supplied engines for what many people consider the finest U.S. automobile marque of all time, DUESENBERG. in the 1920s, a Bugatti-inspired overhead-cam 3-valve-per-cylinder Straight-8 of 180 c.i.d. was developed for some of the Duesenbergs; in the 1930s, according to Fred Duesenberg’s own design, Lycoming manufactured a supercharged 420-cubic-inch Straight-8 with an overhead cam, 4 valves per cylinder, and 8:1 compression ratio that was capable of 400 horsepower. In 1936, two Duesenberg SSJ Speedsters (only two ever built) were equipped with this particular engine; Gary Cooper owned one and Clark Gable owned the second. These were cars that only the richest could afford, and 400 h.p. in the 1930s was easily twice the power that any other U.S. car had; absolutely ground-shattering performance for that period, and still respectable today. I hope everyone enjoyed today’s lesson!
Prior to 1972 the SAE test protocol was for gross gorsepower. Engines were tested without emissions equipment, folters, exhaust systems, and accessory equipment. SAE changed the protocol to test net horsepower, which tests the motor with all its systems attached. Ratings dropped 15-35%.
And 5.0L was actually a 4.9L.
One can swim in numbers. The real thing that matters is what happens behind the wheel.The OP needs to go for test drives.
@drifter:
Back in 65 my Chevelle I used to have was rated 195hp/300tq out of a 283ci V8. My CX-7 is rated 244hp/250tq in a 2.3L I-4, my old Civic was rated for 130hp
I figured that the h.p. and tq. ratings for your ‘65 Chevelle seemed about right, and I looked it up in my Encyclopedia of American Cars just to confirm it. It’s true that the 283 was rated for 195 h.p. and 300 lb./ft. torque with a 2-BBL. carb; h.p. was rated at 220 with the 4-BBL. Still, though, 300 lb./ft. of toque was really none too shabby for a bone-stock 283/2-BBL in a plain-jane Chevelle. And, I have no doubt that your late-model CX-7’s I-4 is good for 244 h.p. Anyway, the point I’m making is that the technology to bring out sizeable power and torque amounts from even the smaller engines is really nothing new; that technology has existed for over 50 years. The main difference between then and now is that, while today even the smallest 4-cyl. engines can post respectable power numbers for their size, back then all the performance enthusiasts wanted healthy, rumbling V-8s under their hoods; they could have cared less about souping up a 4-banger or a 6-banger. The auto manufacturers knew this, so they only offered highly tuned versions of their V-8s in a select number of sporty cars; the cars themselves had heavy-duty suspensions, rear axles, and transmissions (usually a 4-on-the-floor), and the engines themselves had high-compression pistons, at least a big 4-BBL carburetor (w/ some 3x2BBL setups and 2x4BBL setups), and a bigger camshaft to handle the extra CFMs of fuel dumped in thru the carburetors. A prime example is the 1964 Pontiac GTO: while an average Tempest was either equipped with a 215-c.i. I-6 or a 326-c.i. V-8. The GTO had the 389 big-block, available with a 4-BBL or 3x2BBLs, as in the song, “Little GTO” by Ronnie and the Daytonas: "Little GTO, you’re really lookin’ fine, three dueces and a four-speed, and a 389". The 3-deuce-equipped 389 was very conservatively rated at 348 h.p.
If the same high performance know-how had been applied to 4-cyl. and 6-cyl. engines 40 to 50 years ago, then they too would have had much higher power and torque outputs. But like I stated earlier, back in those days everyone who was into high performance wanted a healthy V-8, regardless of how much gasoline it drank, because fuel consumption was a non-issue then. But these days, even the most basic 4’s and 6’s in some of the most mundane vehicles are made to put out more power to suit people who want sizeable power in a small package and without the thirst of a V-8. And there are still plenty of hard-core performance enthusiasts who like the idea of a Mustang GT, Camaro SS, or Challenger RT with the rumble and roar of a V-8.
As for technology, ever wonder about UFOs and “Flying Saucers”? First of all I DO NOT dismiss the possibility of other intelligent life on other worlds in the Universe, but I believe that the majority of UFO sightings are of experimental aircraft that our own military has. Our government has plenty of secrets that we, the masses don’t know about, and I’m sure some of those secrets involve prototype “toys”. Anyway, all for now, and I enjoy exchanging commentary with folks on this forum.
Drifter, remember if is rumoured to exist then the govt has probaly had it for 5 yrs and yes Virginia secrets can be kept
(hmmm,there must be a Santa Claus) I really get tired of people saying with all these cell phone cameras and what have you-where are the pictures? Well last time I checked outside of the obivous hoaxes and misidentified objects,there were plenty.Have I ever seen a UFO?,yes. Oblivion ,check out the Allpar site,I think
the engine was called the “Hyper Six”-Kevin
The fastest Goat (GTO) ever made was the 1964 model (first year) with the single 4-barrel engine. The three-deuce set-up could never demonstrate its higher horsepower rating at the drag strip…
In reality, a three-deuce set-up on a V-8 results in poor fuel distribution and lower horsepower than a single four-barrel carb…But they really LOOK cool…
Hey Caddyman an example of “KISS” or real world meets the paper-anyway weren’t those things kind of Hard to sync? Anyway what do I know,I like Quadrajets,quess Q-Jet wasn’t around in early GTO days.However torque and HP may be related,but they dont always corelate,torque gives you the neck snapping launch,but without HP you wont go very fast( for example a starter motor has a lot of torque ,but very little HP) roughly speaking CID equals torque at standard conditions,more fuel and air equals more HP(sort of,thats why I like KWs)-Kevin
I would have loved to run my Chevelle on the dyno, just to see how much power it was actually putting out.
I believe it was the original motor, and ~30 years of use(10 was spent stored in a barn from what I was told). I would argue that my Civic felt faster than the Chevelle did(key word “felt”). The tall gears of the powerglide made for some slow feeling acceleration, but the higher torque output made it an easier feel as well.
Smallblock Chevy,IMHO best V-8 in the World.Ever hear the rumor about who gave the initial design to the Chevy Boys?-Kevin
PS-I’m not really a Chevy man.
kmccune, I think the Honda story is an urban legend. Even if it isn’t, a sketch isn’t the same as development, testing, and production, as I’m sure you know.
Yes sir you are correct,however have you ever given away a good idea just for the passion and fun of it?You dont have to pay me for my knowledge, I love the exchange of ideas.Occasionally you may find the Phd you dont have to call Dr and is so interested and passionate about thier interests,they dont mind schooling the “great unwashed” I know a Geologist like that and he is a joy to be around-Kevin
It’s true that today’s 4-bangers have around the same power as V6’s of 15, and even 30 years ago. And 2.5-liter 4-cylinder engines actually were around in the late 1970s and early 1980s. My mother used to have a '79 Pontiac Sunbird hatchback with a 151 c.i. (2.5-L) “Iron Duke” 4; it had a 3" stroke and a 4" bore, but not even close to 200 h.p. Now, go back to 40 years ago, and big horsepower and torque outputs were commomplace among high performance cars, specifically the musclecars of the 1960s and early 1970s. An example of this is Chevy’s Mark-IV 454-c.i. bigblock V8 from 1970; the LS-5 version (Chevelle SS) had an advertised horsepower of 450, and the LS-6 version (Corvette) had an advertised horsepower of 465; these engines were naturally-aspirated and had solid lifters; my guess is that their actual horsepower was probably more like 550-600, due to the fact that most, if not all, musclecars had severely underrated horsepower because of insurance reasons. Another example is Mopar’s 426 Hemi V8, advertised at 425 horsepower; I once read an article that documented a number of Chrysler dyno-lab technicians reporting that these engines would often break dyno needles when they reached 600 horsepower. Chrysler’s original Hemi, the 392, which first appeared in the late 1950s, was rated for 390 h.p. Chevrolet was the first to reach the 1-horsepower-per-cubic-inch barrier in 1957 with a fuel-injected versionof the 283 smallblock.