Viper Is Dying! Oh NO!

[G35COUPE]

Exactly because a turbocharged engine is more efficient than a naturally aspirated one, better mileage, less pollution, and if you are in the mood for that, better performance too 8given those two previous parameeters as equal)



There is no reason for them to go bad. Here in EU more than half the cars are turbocharged (diesels), apart from a few cases (early x30d from BMW, some 2.5 V6 150 bhp from VAG, both about 10 years ago) everything is fine.
There is plenty of other stuff that will go wrong before of them, and those are a problem for naturally aspirated cars as well.



As you said, the car is quite heavy, and people are always demanding for more. If you want people to consider your car, it has to be appealing, unfortunately.
They needed a sporty variant, so a more powerful one than the others, but at the same time it had to be smooth and "green". Here you go.



Just everynow and then, it's a Ford, not an M car.
I push my mom's Fiat Stilo to the limits as well, but it isn't sporty even by a billion miles away.



Weight has anything to do with power, and just because Infiniti (Nissan, or Renault for what that I care) did a better job with a simpler engine, it doesn't mean Ford would have been as good as them.
Renault did a 1,2 direct injection turbocharged petrol engine, but it isn't a greener or more frugal engine than the just updated 1,4 liter period petrol engine from Fiat, in the real world driving.
Still, Renault needed that stuff to achieve the same result.



The Infiniti may be lighter, but the Taurus is 15 inches longer (that's quite a lot if we have to consider how much 15 inches of a car weight).
Actually, I didn't find the real curb weight for the Taurus SHO.
Also, the G is "older", and as you know, for a bunch of reasons not to be discussed here, cars tend to be heavier and heavier as days go by.

1. Can you show us that miraculuos turbo charged engine that is so much so efficient than a naturally aspirated engine at all rpm ranges?? Mind you, as long as you drive a turbo like a grandma or under low boost levels, in terms of efficiency, you wil be just fine. At higher boost levels, most after market turbos will fail emission inspections. To ensure this does not occur, some use "post cat anti-foulers" to space the oxygen sensor away from the outgoing gases---this creates the illusion of low emission readings which allows the cars ECU to be tricked into passing emmission inspections. You may also not beleive this, but a supercharger is more likley to pass emission inspections than a turbo charger.

2. While turbos have been made to be more reliable in recent years, unfortunately, more parts on a car, will always mean more stuff to break, and more stuff to fix. There is no reason for many parts of cars to go bad, but in reality, they do. And the more stuff you have on a car that can go bad, the better the chance that it will.

3. I have not seen the green rating of the FORD SHO, I don't expect it to be substantially better than the green rating of the Infiniti G37 Journey, given that both have about the same level of fuel efficiency. And the additional weight is not a good sign that the green rating of that car is going to be great. The lighter the car, the bettter and easier it is to achieve a good green rating.

4. Ford owns the "Jaguar", and they make appealing and powerful cars. They have a 4.2L V-8 that produces 300 horses, though the price is quite steep. I am unsure why a V-8 that can easily produce that much power without any turbocharger, was not considered. And, I am unsure why throwing two turbo chargers into a regular FORD is supposed to make it more appealing and more pleasurable. Reliability, is also a function of how many more moving parts you have in a system, that can potentially fall apart. In this case, the FORD SHO has two additional and expensive moving parts (two turbos) versus Infiniti which has two less moving parts. Chevy shares its LS series of engines with their Impalla SS brands--LS3 engines , Corvette brands, and Pontiac brands.

5. I am sorry to inform you that weight has everything to do with a car's response and performance. In a 4th gear roll in my G-35 Coupe that weighs 3400 pounds and with about 305 - 310 horses with my mild modifications in a v-6 engine, a Pontiac G8 GT that weighs about 3900 pounds with 355 horsepower in a v-8 engine, could not make it past my car. The additional 400 - 500 pounds of weight in the Pontiac could not be moved ahead of me with its additional 40 - 50 horsepower.

The more the weight the more energy or power you will need to move a body through a specific distance. The less the weight of the car, the less the energy you will need to do the same amount of work. There is such a thing called power-to-weight ratio which is vitally important in determing a vehicles actual abilities as well as their level of efficience and reliability.

6. While I am unsure how a car gets heavier and heavier with time or what you mean by that, the only logical reason for this would be parts of a car that become hygroscopic, over time. This means, some parts absorb water or moisture from the environment, thus gradually adding to the weight of the car. But I highly doubt this is the case with the Infiniti, or if at all, if the weight increase is significant in any way. And in the same token, given that some of the auto manufacturers share the same parts suppliers, the same weight gain as you ahve suggested, should also be apparent on the FORD SHO, as it ages, especially if this theory you have put forward is actually credible. If not, then the price of the FORD SHO should be substantially higher to account for the technology and manufacturing processes that may be involved in reducing its weight gain with age. Again, this weight gain theory is somewhat questionable.

[henk4]

1. Can you show us that miraculuos turbo charged engine that is so much so efficient than a naturally aspirated engine at all rpm ranges?

I have a 2.2 litre 4 cylinder twin turbo diesel engine that produces 207 BHP and 468 NM of torque. Average mileage after having driven it for about 30000 km. 6.8 liter per 100 km. (Before that I had four single turbo cars, without any problems to the turbos at all)
But let other speak for the BMW twin turbo petrol engine.....

[G35COUPE]

I have a 2.2 litre 4 cylinder twin turbo diesel engine that produces 207 BHP and 468 NM of torque. Average mileage after having driven it for about 30000 km. 6.8 liter per 100 km. (Before that I had four single turbo cars, without any problems to the turbos at all)
But let other speak for the BMW twin turbo petrol engine.....

Nice!!! Without a doubt, the diesel makes a world of difference in gas mileage. I did the conversion and you were getting about 36.54 miles per gallon (mpg), which is pretty good for a car that produces over 200 bhp.

My little 1.6 litre petrol Nissan B13 that is about 16 years old, and barely has 105 horsepower, still gets about 32 mpg. If it were diesel, i bet i would get better gas mileage and tons of torque.

Unfortunately, in the US, diesel power has still not yet caught on. I strongly beleive that a turbo set up with a good diesel engine is the ultimate combination of fuel efficiency and power production. In fact, I beleive in it so much that I laugh at the electric hybrid cars they sell to us here in the name of eco-friendliness. And then, diesel engines are historically more reliable than petrol engines. In fact, by cursory observation on the streets in my neighborhood, I still see more 1979 - 1980 model year Mercedes Benz 300D Sedans running around than I see their petrol counterparts. I have yet to come across a 1979- 1980 petrol powered Mercedes 200 Sedan around the area where I live.

[henk4]

Nice!!! Without a doubt, the diesel makes a world of difference in gas mileage. I did the ocnversion and you were getting about 36.54 miles per gallon (mpg), which is pretty good for a car that produces over 200 bhp.

My little petrol Nissan B13 that is about 16 years old, and barely has 105 horsepower, still gets about 32 mpg. If it were diesel, i bet i would get better gas mileage and tons of torque.

it also weighs in about 1600 kg....see avatar...

[G35COUPE]

it also weighs in about 1600 kg....see avatar...

That is about 3500 pounds, which isn't bad at all. Certainly the high level of torque produced, makes it possible for such a small engine to push so much weight around effortlessly. My petrol 1.6 litre Nissan B-13 has about 3100 - 3200 pounds.

Again, turbo diesel engines is what I beleive, we need in the USA, if we want power and performance at the same time.

[LeonOfTheDead]

1. Can you show us that miraculuos turbo charged engine that is so much so efficient than a naturally aspirated engine at all rpm ranges?? Mind you, as long as you drive a turbo like a grandma or under low boost levels, in terms of efficiency, you wil be just fine. At higher boost levels, most after market turbos will fail emission inspections. To ensure this does not occur, some use "post cat anti-foulers" to space the oxygen sensor away from the outgoing gases---this creates the illusion of low emission readings which allows the cars ECU to be tricked into passing emmission inspections. You may also not beleive this, but a supercharger is more likley to pass emission inspections than a turbo charger.

It's not a miracol, it's colled volumetric efficiency, and it's math.
And yes, it works at almost all rpm, but as opposed to what you said at low rpm, it isn't a better situation, just equal to having a naturally aspirated engine, as the turbo isn't working.
VGT mono turbo systems in diesel engines (low end torque so) start having an effect at at least 1.500 rpm.
Not even answering the "after market" thing, as if after market parts for naturally aspirated engines are better and provides better emissions as a given fact.
A turbocharged improve the efficiency of an engine, take a mech book and have a good read.
For the record, better efficiency doesn't mean better mileage.
Every engine at higher rpm is more efficient than at lower ones, but it also takes more fuel to have an engine running at 6.000 rpm than 3.000. Still the efficiency is better at 6.000. Always (given the engine is decently designed, assembled, mated to the gearbox etc etc).

2. While turbos have been made to be more reliable in recent years, unfortunately, more parts means on a car, will always mean more stuff to break, and more stuff to fix. There is no reason for many parts of cars to go bad, but in reality, they do. And the more stuff you have on a car that can go bad, the better the chance that it will.

Seriously, turbos don't break if they aren't defective. My father drove an Alfa 156 JTD (one of the first cars to have a common rail system) to 190.000 km in 3 years, then I took it to 230.000 km with my mother. Want to know what went bad? The clutch, at 190.000 km.
Saying than with more parts on your cars more things could go bad...are you using a car without A/C perhaps?

3. I have not seen the green rating of the FORD SHO, I don't expect it to be sunstantially better than the green rating of the Infiniti G37 Journey, given that both have about the same level of fuel efficiency. And the additional weight is not a good sign that the green rating of that car is going to be great. The lighter the car, the bettter and easier it is to achieve a good green rating.

You just said the two cars have a similar fuel efficiency (what's that?!). Assuming that means a similar fuel consumption...that means that the SHO's engine, albeit being 40 bhp more powerful and the car about 500 lbs (your figures) heavier, is a hell of a better engine.

Even getting emissions' level for the two cars, those aren't eally directly comparable, as between what happens in an engine and what arrive to the exhaust or at the wheels, a lot of other things happens. The SHO's engine could be a hell of an engine, but perhaps the gearbox is the worst on the Earth, and screws everything.
If they did an average job designing the SHO's engine, it will be a good engine. Than perhaps Nissan did a better job using a standard technology engine. In which case, you should wonder what Nissan could do applying that tech to one of their designs.

4. Ford owns the "Jaguar", and they make appealing and powerful cars. They have a 4.2L V-8 that produces 300 horses, though the price is quite steep. I am unsure why a V-8 that can easily produce that much power without any turbocharger, was not considered. And, I am unsure why throwing two turbo chargers into a regular FORD is supposed to make it more appealing and more pleasurable. Reliability, is also a function of how many more moving parts you have in a system, that can potentially fall apart. In this case, the FORD SHO has two additional and expensive moving parts (two turbos) versus Infiniti which has two less moving parts. Chevy shares its LS series of engines with their Impalla SS brands--LS3 engines , Corvette brands, and Pontiac brands.

Breaking news, Tata owns Jaguar since a year or so.
And if you keep considering a turbo just a source of problem, than goodbye and stick to your thinking.
The Jaguar V8 is expensive, first reason for not using it on a Ford, second, it's old and thirsty.
It's also pretty large (4.2), while at the moment having a smaller engine and with modern tech (even if useless) is what helped Ford trough the recent period. For the record, emissions level of the V8 naturally aspirated from Jaguar are 269 grams of CO2 per km, on the old XJ.
The double turbo 3.0 I6 on the new BMW 7 Series is good for 326 bhp, and emits 232 grams of CO2 per km.
Would you say a BMW is unreliable as a Ford? No, the BMW is excellent as it costs 80.000 €. The SHO uses a pretty similar technology (not exactly the same, still two turbos), so I don't see why it should be a shitty and unreliable engine.
Perhaps Ford fits the engine with gremlins, who knows...

5. I am sorry to inform you that weight has everything to do with a car's response and performance. In a 4th gear roll in my G-35 Coupe that weighs 3400 pounds and with about 305 - 310 horses with my mild modifications in a v-6 engine, a Pontiac G8 GT that weighs about 3900 pounds with 355 horsepower in a v-8 engine, could not make it past my car. the additional 400 - 500 pounds of weight in the Pontiac could not be moved ahead of me with with its additional 40 - 50 horsepower.

Correct, the weight has to do with the performance, not with the power as YOU said.
And don't trow in mods and tuning, it's just unfair and pointless to compare a tuned car to a stock one.

The more the weight the more energy or power you will need to move a body through a specific distance. The less the weight of the car, the less the energy you will need to do the same amount of work. There is such a thing called power-to-weight ratio which is vitally important in determing a vehicles actual abilities as well as their level of efficience and reliability.

never said the opposite, still it isn't that simple. a car may be lighter, and still worst. A car isn't made only of the power/weight ratio.

6. While I am unsure how a car gets heavier and heavier with time or what you mean by that, the only logical reason for this would be parts of a car that become hygroscopic, over time. This means, some parts absorb water or moisture from the environment, thus gradually adding to the weight of the car. But I highly doubt this is the case with the Infiniti, or if at all, if the weight increase is significant in any way. And in the same token, given that some of the auto manufacturers share the same parts suppliers, the same weight gain as you ahve suggested, should also be apparent on the FORD SHO, as it ages, especially if this theory you have put forward is actually credible. If not, then the price of the FORD SHO should be substantially higher to account for the technology and manufacturing processes that may be involved in reducing its weight gain with age. Again, this weight gain theory is somewhat questionable.

Dude, I mean every year new cars are designed, and they weights mroe than those designed the year before for a bunch of reasons, as safety devices, gizmos, comfort, noise deadening and so on. nothing sci-fi.

[LeonOfTheDead]

Just because I saw you did a comment about diesel engines being mroe reliable than petrol ones... how does it sounds a 1989 Alfa Romeo 164 2.0 Twin Spark with 420.000 km without major issues?

[henk4]

. how does it sounds a 1989 Alfa Romeo 164 2.0 Twin Spark with 420.000 km without major issues?

a miracle???

[LeonOfTheDead]

a miracle???

The only problem with had was the interior a bit falling apart in the end.
I don't know if the LPG system helped somehow, still I loved that car I'll never forget it .
It was Rosso Alfa, with the lower part in gray, like this:




Minus the Q4 treatment

[G35COUPE]

It's not a miracol, it's colled volumetric efficiency, and it's math.
And yes, it works at almost all rpm, but as opposed to what you said at low rpm, it isn't a better situation, just equal to having a naturally aspirated engine, as the turbo isn't working.
VGT mono turbo systems in diesel engines (low end torque so) start having an effect at at least 1.500 rpm.
Not even answering the "after market" thing, as if after market parts for naturally aspirated engines are better and provides better emissions as a given fact.
A turbocharged improve the efficiency of an engine, take a mech book and have a good read.
For the record, better efficiency doesn't mean better mileage.
Every engine at higher rpm is more efficient than at lower ones, but it also takes more fuel to have an engine running at 6.000 rpm than 3.000. Still the efficiency is better at 6.000. Always (given the engine is decently designed, assembled, mated to the gearbox etc etc).



Seriously, turbos don't break if they aren't defective. My father drove an Alfa 156 JTD (one of the first cars to have a common rail system) to 190.000 km in 3 years, then I took it to 230.000 km with my mother. Want to know what went bad? The clutch, at 190.000 km.
Saying than with more parts on your cars more things could go bad...are you using a car without A/C perhaps?




You just said the two cars have a similar fuel efficiency (what's that?!). Assuming that means a similar fuel consumption...that means that the SHO's engine, albeit being 40 bhp more powerful and the car about 500 lbs (your figures) heavier, is a hell of a better engine.

Even getting emissions' level for the two cars, those aren't eally directly comparable, as between what happens in an engine and what arrive to the exhaust or at the wheels, a lot of other things happens. The SHO's engine could be a hell of an engine, but perhaps the gearbox is the worst on the Earth, and screws everything.
If they did an average job designing the SHO's engine, it will be a good engine. Than perhaps Nissan did a better job using a standard technology engine. In which case, you should wonder what Nissan could do applying that tech to one of their designs.



Breaking news, Tata owns Jaguar since a year or so.
And if you keep considering a turbo just a source of problem, than goodbye and stick to your thinking.
The Jaguar V8 is expensive, first reason for not using it on a Ford, second, it's old and thirsty.
It's also pretty large (4.2), while at the moment having a smaller engine and with modern tech (even if useless) is what helped Ford trough the recent period. For the record, emissions level of the V8 naturally aspirated from Jaguar are 269 grams of CO2 per km, on the old XJ.
The double turbo 3.0 I6 on the new BMW 7 Series is good for 326 bhp, and emits 232 grams of CO2 per km.
Would you say a BMW is unreliable as a Ford? No, the BMW is excellent as it costs 80.000 €. The SHO uses a pretty similar technology (not exactly the same, still two turbos), so I don't see why it should be a shitty and unreliable engine.
Perhaps Ford fits the engine with gremlins, who knows...



Correct, the weight has to do with the performance, not with the power as YOU said.
And don't trow in mods and tuning, it's just unfair and pointless to compare a tuned car to a stock one.



never said the opposite, still it isn't that simple. a car may be lighter, and still worst. A car isn't made only of the power/weight ratio.



Dude, I mean every year new cars are designed, and they weights mroe than those designed the year before for a bunch of reasons, as safety devices, gizmos, comfort, noise deadening and so on. nothing sci-fi.

1. A good tune should provide a good volumetric efficiency which is what manufacturers do during testing, and before the car is sold. No doubt the better the volumetric efficiency, the better the efficient use of fuel relative to power output, generally at all rpms, and the less likely of pinging occuring as well. I never made any association between after-market installs and better emissions as fact. I only threw in the aftermarket comment as an example of my own observations between naturally aspirated cars and turbos. Maybe I should have used a better example or clarified things.

2. A turbo charger improves the efficiency of an engine built for it, and not just for any engine. You are right, better fuel efficiency does not practically mean better fuel mileage, but theoretically speaking, an engine that provides a good stoichiometric ratio of fuel and air mixture at all rpms ranges, should theoretically be as efficient as is possible throughout the rpm range, while theorietically producing the best power output for that efficiency level. So, don't confuse absolutes with relatives. Volumetric efficiency is actually a concept of relatives and not absolutes. I don't need a mech book to understand volumetric efficiency. Try a chemistry book, won't you?

3. I don't know what you mean by an engine being decently designed. All engines put in the market place should technically be decently designed, isn't it??

4. Just because the parts you mentioned did not break, does not mean it could not have potentially broken. The simple laws of physics dictates that the more parts there are to a given system, the likelihood of something going wrong increases. This applies to all systems, to include engines. This does not mean the part will actually break. It only suggests that the likelihood does incraese. I have A/C in my both of my cars and I rarely use it. I prefer to have the natural air blowing in my face.

5. While Tata now owns Jaguar, which I should have mentioned, THEY HAVE NOT YET, come out with a design that is uniquely influenced by the new ownership (Tata Motors). Much of the current Jaguar designs were already on the drawing board before the sale. And buying an auto-brand is not like buying a cookie in a grocery store. It takes years and time to develop something different and unique relative to the new and current dispensation in Tata Motors. So, the one year cited is actually irrelevant given the resources and time needed to come up with a new design.

6. I have no issues with turbos. I only have issues with adding more parts to a car when less could be just as good. As I said before, "The simple laws of physics dictates that the more parts there are to a given system, the likelihood of something going wrong increases." And, if you must know, in the aviation world, right after WWII as they moved from piston driven engines that had maximum speeds of about 500 miles per hour, to rotary engines that could go beyond those speeds with less issues, flying has beocme safer and more reliable. Why??? Less stuff or moving parts to break--increased reliability.

7. How do you know that the 4.2L V-8 is expensive??? The cost of the Jaguar could be associated with its advanced electronics which Jaguar is well known for, manufacturing process, inefficiency in production, or just its status symbol, etc. Any number of things could account for the cost of the Jaguar. A Dodge Charger R/T with a 5.7L V-8 that produces over 350 horsepower costs a mere $32,000, which is at least, $7,000 cheaper than a Ford SHO.

8. Ford got through its recent crisis because they were the first to start loosing big money on a quarterly basis as early as 2006/2007. They started their restructuring in 2006/2007 before the financial crisis even came to bloom. It actually cost Mr Bill Ford his job as CEO, as he was relegated to the job of Chairman of Ford. Thats why Mr Mullay was hired as CEO to help turn around Ford, operationally. So, Ford was well ahead of the inevitable restructuring that had to be accomplished, well before GM and Chrysler decided it was worth doing. Go on line and check things out for yourself.

9. As far as the emissions numbers are concerned, several factors can account for those numbers. So, that argument is relative. Since C02 is a function of the complete combustion of air, even a small variance in the amount of air going into the cars in-take, given the volumetric efficiency and changes in environmental conditions (humidity, temperature, pressure, etc), can increase or decrease the amount of C02 being extruded by the same car. In addition, BMW may be using a higher quality catalytic converter than Jaguar, to scrub the exhust gases more thoroughly, thus the higher price of the BMW than a Jaguar of similar size. All catalytic converters are not made the same. In addition, these cars now have the capabilities to re-burn some of these effluent gases by small re-introductions back into the combustion chambers, which does reduce the volume of gases emitted. We don't know how much this occurs in these cars. In fact, its almost the same principle as re-injecting C02 back into the ground during oil-drilling and exploration processes. So, many factors can account for such small differences in C02 emission. And, 32 grams per liter is such a small amount in the world of gases to be taken seriously.

10. I never said the SHO was unreliable and i never said i did not like it. All i was trying to say here is that given the choice of driving a car that has less parts that can go wrong, I will take the one that has less parts. The simple laws of physics dictates that the more parts there are to a given system, the likelihood of something going wrong increases. This applies to all systems, to include engines. This does not mean the part will actually break. I never said power-to-weight ratio was th eonly thing considered in auto design. I said it was vitally important.

[G35COUPE]

Just because I saw you did a comment about diesel engines being mroe reliable than petrol ones... how does it sounds a 1989 Alfa Romeo 164 2.0 Twin Spark with 420.000 km without major issues?

My 1.6 litre petrol Nissan B13, as I speak, has over 260,000 miles or 418,429 Km. This is reliable for a petrol engine and I am going to rough handle the car this evening for fun, as I enjoy driving it.

Now, if you placed the amount of torque and horsepower generated by a diesel engine of equal engine size as my petrol engine, on my current engine, It is doubtful that my petrol engine car would have made it this far or have been as reliable as a diesel engine. Simply, the amount of heat generated in a diesel engine with the amount of work it does, will be a challenge for a petrol engine to reasonably sustain, over an extended period of time.

[f6fhellcat13]

My 1.6 litre petrol Nissan B13 has, as I speak, over 260,000 miles or 418,429 Km. This is reliable for a petrol engine and I am goin going to rough handle the car this evening for fun, as I enjoy driving it.

Now, if you placed the amount of torque and horsepower generated by a diesel engine of equal engine size as my petrol engine, on my current engine, It is doubtful that my petrol engine car would have made it this far or have been as reliable as a diesel engine. Simply, the amount of heat generated in a diesel engine with the amount of work it does, will be a challenge for a petrol engine to reasonable sustain, over an extended period of time.

Diesel engines have to deal with much higher compression...
Apples and oranges, in this respect. There will always be mitigating factors.

EDIT: As for your Alfa, Leon, the only things that could explain that are witchcraft and reverse psychology.

[G35COUPE]

Diesel engines have to deal with much higher compression...
Apples and oranges, in this respect. There will always be mitigating factors.

EDIT: As for your Alfa, Leon, the only things that could explain that are witchcraft and reverse psychology.

This is true. But it does not change the fact that a similar sized diesel engine as my petrol car, is in theory, more reliable, given the amount of work the diesel engine does, compared to my petrol powered car.

In engine design, more work and power output, simply means, less reliability.

[LeonOfTheDead]

1. A good tune should provide a good volumetric efficiency which is what manufacturers do during testing, and before the car is sold. No doubt the better the volumetric efficiency, the better the efficient use of fuel relative to power output, generally at all rpms, and the less likely of pinging occuring as well. I never made any association between after-market installs and better emissions as fact. I only threw in the aftermarket comment as an example of my own observations between naturally aspirated cars and turbos. Maybe I should have used a better example or clarified things.

2. A turbo charger improves the efficiency of an engine built for it, and not just for any engine. You are right, better fuel efficiency does not practically mean better fuel mileage, but theoretically speaking, an engine that provides a good stoichiometric ratio of fuel and air mixture at all rpms ranges, should theoretically be as efficient as is possible throughout the rpm range, while theorietically producing the best fuel mileage for that efficiency level. So, don't confuse absolutes with relatives. I don't need a mech book to understand volumetric efficiency. Try a chemistry book, won't you?

The correct stoichiometric ratio (which isn't the one provided by chemistry as a combustion chamber isn't the perfect and ideal volume on which those reactions should take place) can be maintained even by a naturally aspirated engine.
Each cylinder would divide the quantity of air that just entered, divide it per 14,8 (iirc) and introduce that quantity of fuel. This is done by both engines, just the turbocharged engine can "contain" much more air, thanks to the turbine, and accordingly, it will enter more fuel, but still 1/14,8 times the quantity of air in the cylinder. Actually, as I mentioned, engines don't work at the stoichiometric ratio, as that's the theoretical value for having the perfect combustion, which never happens. So a lean or rich mixture of air and fuel is to be adopted, also to help to cut the emissions on the exhaust line.
But this is a different story, still, the stoichiometric ratio has nothing to do with the turbocharging. It just changes the quantities, not the ratio.

3. I don't know what you mean by an engine being decently designed. All engines put in the market place should technically be decently designed, isn't it??

That's my point, so there s no reason to think the SHO's engine won't work properly

4. Just because the parts you mentioned did not break, does not mean it could not have potentially broken. The simple laws of physics dictates that the more parts there are to a given system, the likelihood of something going wrong increases. This applies to all systems, to include engines. This does not mean the part will actually break. It only suggests that the likelihood does incraese. I have A/C in my both of my cars and I rarely use it. I prefer to have the natural air blowing in my face.

That's not physics, it's statistics.
By that, everything could fall apart, but there are things so common that they are now considerable as a safe and reliable component. Even a connectin rod could collapse under the stress of the combustion cycle, but it doesn't happen, because it's a common component and there aren't secrets about its design. So it's for turbos. The can fail, that's why warranty exists, but statistically they won't.
Superchargers used to be a bit less reliable, especially the scroll ones, but they are fine since quite some time now.

5. While Tata now owns Jaguar, which I should have mentioned, THEY HAVE NOT YET, come out with a design that is uniquely influenced by the new ownership (Tata Motors). Much of the current Jaguar designs were already on the drawing board before the sale. And buying an auto-brand is not like buying a cookie in a grocery store. It takes years and time to develop something different and unique relative to the new and current dispensation in Tata Motors. So, the one year cited is actually irrelevant given the resources and time needed to come up with a new design.

I mentioned Tata only for as regards who owns Jag, don't say I meant it to have an engineering meaning.

6. I have no issues with turbos. I only have issues with adding more parts to a car when less could be just as good. As I said before, "The simple laws of physics dictates that the more parts there are to a given system, the likelihood of something going wrong increases." And, if you must know, in the aviation world, right after WWII as they moved from piston driven engines that had maximum speeds of about 500 miles per hour, to rotary engines that could go beyond those speeds with less issues, flying has beocme safer and more reliable. Why??? Less stuff or moving parts to break--increased reliability.

How are Lexus'? Cars full of stuff, especially the hybrid ones. Mercedes', BMWs? All the same. Are they reliable? Yes. they are also more expensive, that's for sure.
The I6 twin turbo from BMW is available also on the 1 Series coupe, which should have (I think) an after all similar price in the States as that of the SHO.
The BMW's is a good engine, and reliable. I can't see a given reason for the SHO's to be different.
As I said above, turbos are a common element, designed and redesigned for years, I'd say they know how to build them by now. Also, we are not talking about a 300 bhp/liter engine, it's a 100 bhp/liter one, a pretty common and "safe" value for a turbocharged engine.

[LeonOfTheDead]

had to split the post, too long.

7. How do you know that the 4.2L V-8 is expensive??? The cost of the Jaguar could be associated with its advanced electronics which Jaguar is well known for, manufacturing process, inefficiency in production, or just its status symbol, etc. Any number of things could account for the cost of the Jaguar. A Dodge Charger R/T with a 5.7L V-8 that produces over 350 horsepower costs a mere $32,000, which is at least, $7,000 cheaper than a Ford SHO.

My point about Tata doesn't apply to the design of the engine and I never pretended it to be so, what you wrote is correct.
Still my point about the Jag V8 being mroe expensive is that engine was designed to be adopted on a luxury vehicle, so it's probably designed to be more silent (less vibrations), smoother to run, with quit a lot of low end torque and so on. This doesn't mean it's more expensive, could be, could be not, but it's different from the V8 you can find in the Mustang, and the Jag V8 is built in much less units that the Mustang one, hence it's more expensive given they use similar technologies and materials in the assembly.

The last Maserati MC12 Versione Corse was sold with a very very limited gain for Maserati, because parts were specifically built for that car, while all the other MC12 were built in quantities of at least 3 cars.
Just to quote a detail, the carbon fiber strip under the windshield to help it staying as it is at high speed costs 50 € if produced in 3 units, 90 € in a single one.

8. Ford got through its recent crisis because they were the first to start loosing big money on a quarterly basis as early as 2006/2007. They started their restructuring in 2006/2007 before the financial crisis even came to bloom. It actually cost Mr Bill Ford his job as CEO, as he was relegated to the job of Chairman of Ford. Thats why Mr Mullay was hired as CEO to help turn around Ford, operationally. So, Ford was well ahead of the inevitable restructuring that had to be accomplished, well before GM and Chrysler decided it was worth doing. Go on line and check things out for yourself.

Ford is selling more than the other 2 American companies. Sure Ford can rely on the others' troubles and bad image, being bankrupted, but people probably things their product are good if they are buying them.
I wouldn't buy a car I don't like only because the other two national companies are in trouble, Japanese companies are still there.
Ford is the only one to have entered, for real, the downsizing path, and it's paying already.

9. As far as the emissions numbers are concerned, several factors can account for those numbers. So, that argument is relative. Since C02 is a function of the complete combustion of air, even a small variance in the amount of air going into the cars in-take can increase or decrease the amount of C02 being extruded. In addition, BMW may be using a higher quality catalytic converter than Jaguar, thus the higher price of the BMW than a Jaguar of similar size. In addition, these cars now have the capabilities to re-burn some of these effluent gases by small re-introductions back into the combustion chambers, which does reduce the volume of gases emitted. We don't know how much this occurs in these cars. In fact, its almost the same principle as re-injecting C02 back into the ground during oil-drilling and exploration processes. So, many factors can account for such small differences in C02 emission. And, 32 grams per liter is such a small amount in the world of gases to be taken seriously.

It isn't, as a freaking non polluting car is considered so if it emits less than 100 grams!
32 grams is 1/3 that value, how could you say it isn't enough?!
Do you know, by any chance, how much CO2 an average car emits?
230 grams of CO2 per km is a really low figure for a 326 bhp engine moving a 1.860 kg full size sedan!


those are certified values by the EU. The test is done in a laboratory with air at 1 atm of pressure and 20 °C, simulating the exact same trip for all cars. It's not a perfect test, but it's equal for all of them.

10. I never said the SHO was unreliable and i never said i did not like it. All i was trying to say here is that given the choice of driving a car that has less parts that can go wrong, I will take the one that has less parts. The simple laws of physics dictates that the more parts there are to a given system, the likelihood of something going wrong increases. This applies to all systems, to include engines. This does not mean the part will actually break.

oh you really were saying this?
I don't think so, but it's fair enough.

I'll repeat this another time.
Given the same designing, building and assembly capabilities both for as regards the engine and the whole car, a direct injection turbocharged engine is always going to be a more efficient engine.
You can either use this to gain more power, or have a better mileage.
With VGT systems you can have a bit of both.
Also, when the engine is running without the turbo actually working (thanks to the ECU), the revs will be a bit higher, increasing the volumetric efficiency, and achieving a better mileage (as that's the purpose here) but most of all less emissions per liter of fuel, allowing to pass the emissions tests even small hot hatches like the recent Abarths. it's basically the same argument of cylinders deactivation on V-engined cars.

The Ferrari California has it, but we both know it isn't to save fuel.