[Motorcycle_salesman]

Im not engine expert and my basics are probably rusty so please bear with me but im comparing the 2010 Mustang Vs the 2010 370z. Overall i like the looks of the Stang so much more. The mustang has a 4.6 engine while it makes 315 hp so on average its using 14.6ccs to make ONE hp. The Z on the other hand has a 3.7 engine but its making 332hp so on average its using 11.14ccs to make ONE hp. Why exactly is this happening? Why cant the stang make one hp per 11 cubic centimeter? If it did it would be making 418 hp using the SAME engine. Do the manufacturers do this on purpose to buy the better tuned cars or is there a reason behind it?

 

[Rhetorik]

Well one difference (I don't know if this is relevant or not, but whatever) is that the mustang pumps out 325 lb-ft of torque, whereas the 370z only delivers 270

 

[Motorcycle_salesman]

Well one difference (I don't know if this is relevant or not, but whatever) is that the mustang pumps out 325 lb-ft of torque, whereas the 370z only delivers 270

Okay but torque in general when it comes to vehicles refers to acceleration so basically you are saying the mustang would be better starting off (like in the quarter mile it would be much faster) but in the top end speed the 370 would be much faster?

 

[92blkSi]

isnt the Z a 6 cly and the rustang is a v8 as well?

 

[amean94ta]

2010 mustang 0-60 in 4.9 sec and 13.50 1/4 mile at 104.2 mph ** price as tested $27,995
2010 370z 0-60 in 5.1 sec and 13.70 1/4 mile at 104 mph **price as tested $44,040

thats all that matters

 

[Motorcycle_salesman]

isnt the Z a 6 cly and the rustang is a v8 as well?

yeah the mustang gt is a V8

 

[Motorcycle_salesman]

2010 mustang 0-60 in 4.9 sec and 13.50 1/4 mile at 104.2 mph
2010 370z 0-60 in 5.1 sec and 13.70 1/4 mile at 104 mph

thats all that matters

I was expecting the mustang to be much faster in the quarter mile because of its extra torque.

 

[beowulf2k]

Imagine if the japs made a V-8 in that Z? It would be even better. But the truth is they can build efficient with reliability in a small v6 package.
Maybe you should have compared the Camaro SS to the Nissan-then you wouldnt have any questions.

 

[bleda2002]

I was expecting the mustang to be much faster in the quarter mile because of its extra torque.

Its also heavier though by a lot.

Also, that time you have for the 370z's quarter mile is way off. Its 0-60 in 4.7 and 1/4 mile in 13.3. Its actually quicker than the mustang GT, just like the 2003 Z was quicker than the comparable mustang

The Z car is not only a better straight line performer, it flat out destroys the mustang in the corners where the mustang just chugs and body rolls along.

Even the automatic does 0-60 in 4.9 so not sure what piss poor testers they had to pull such bad numbers on the Z....

Edit: I just saw what article you were looking at, they tested the Z @ high elevation which just sucks the numbers right out of it since its not boosted

 

[georgiaDSM]

the smaller motors usually have higher compression to accomodate.

 

[Teej]

Every engine design is a series of tradeoffs. The most relevant here is that a design that breathes well and makes good torque at low RPM (under 4000) is not going to be able to breathe well above 7000. That's the typical design of _most_ American pushrod engines. I'm speaking more about the small block chevy series, the hemi, ford's 302/351, etc. This doesn't apply as much to the 4.6 sohc/dohc style engines.

These engines have simple designs - one cam riding down inside the "V" of the engine, constant profile, and usually 1 intake and 1 exhaust valve per cylinder. The design, with the long pushrods, lifters etc makes it a poor choice for high RPM operation - too many parts with tolerances that would probably get torn to shit at high speed. So they optimize the cam profile and such for low end grunt and midrange. Choosing a cam for that range pretty much means that it's useless as the rpms wind up.

On the other hand, if you design an engine for higher rpm operation, with the cams up top with a "tighter" design (less slop) in regards to opening the valves...and use more valves...you're free to turn up the RPM range a bit. However, to get a cam that allows the engine to breathe well at high rpm, you give up power down low. By spinning the engine faster, you get more HP from less torque (HP = torque * rpm/5252) so a smaller engine makes more hp per displacement.

A torquey, low-end motor is easier and more fun to drive and quicker around town. When you start to play on a race track, you generally want to drag less weight around...so you go with a smaller car and smaller engine...and here the the high-revver makes more sense.

Also keep in mind that while the high revver may get more HP / displacement, they will usually have a higher (ie worse) BSFC (brake specific fuel consumption - fuel per horsepower).

To figure out on paper what's going to "win" in a drag race, you'd need to use a horsepower graph and plot your shift points and look at the "area under the curve" that you're using based on those shift points. Whichever car is able to put down a higher average horsepower per pound of vehicle (and driver) weight should win, all else being equal.

 

[Teej]

Its also heavier though by a lot.

No it isn't. The 370Z roadster is about 100 pounds heavier than a mus GT hardtop. About 30 pounds lighter than the GT rag top.

The biggest contributor I see here is that Ford has frequently over-rated the power of the engines. Makes headlines every now and then when enough people get pissed off about it. Last one _I REMEMBER_ was in the mid/late 90s when they came out with a cobra that seemed to be running 50-75 shy of the advertised number.

 

[beowulf2k]

Well hell even the V6 Camaro can give the 370 z some comp.

 

[HiSpeed48]

bore:stroke ratio and rod length

an engine with a bore diameter - stroke length ratio of 1:1 (like many small displacement japenese motors) generally has less torque, but is higher rev'ing and capable of making more top end horsepower.

 

[Tripped1]

bore:stroke ratio and rod length

an engine with a bore diameter - stroke length ratio of 1:1 (like many small displacement japenese motors) generally has less torque, but is higher rev'ing and capable of making more top end horsepower.

The 350 only revved to 6500.

 

[Gimpdiggity]

Looking at solely the size of an engine as far as displacement goes isn't going to get you very far in determining that engines performance.

That doesn't take into account virtually everything else involved in the process of building an engine.

A perfect example is the Chevy Corvette. The 7.0 liter in the Z06 puts down 505 horses. However, the 6.2 liter in the ZR1 puts down 638...but, that 6.2 is supercharged and built differently.

Solely looking at the size of the engine is, in a way, like looking at two guys that are both 6 feet tall and weigh 220 pounds and assuming that they would be equal in terms of athletic ability. In fact, one of them is 220 pounds because he's solid muscle and the other is 220 pounds of nothing but flab. By looking at only the height and weight (like displacement) you are going to assume they'll both run as fast as each other...but when you look at the different internals you'll see they are actually two completely different engines.

 

[bleda2002]

Err the 370 weighs in @ 3,374, the mustang @ 3,572...200 pounds difference is quite a bit.

 

[F4sSprintST]

you need to look at the weight.......

but also, the AREA under the torque curve

I was expecting the mustang to be much faster in the quarter mile because of its extra torque.

 

[NattyDrez]

The new 2010 370Z is priced at around $40k!?!

Holy shit, wasnt expecting that.

 

[bleda2002]

The base 370 is just under 30K, but if you add in all the options (nav, leather, heated seats etc) it climbs to top out at about 40.5K. For the 29K though the car you get is still unbeatable @ its price point.