Dreaming little dreamy dreams

A small engine doesn't have to equal small power, especially when forced induction is in the equation. But I can understand why people are drawn to big-block V8s and larger engines. They have a nice growl.

Egad on the tire change!

Seamaster wrote:A small engine doesn't have to equal small power, especially when forced induction is in the equation. But I can understand why people are drawn to big-block V8s and larger engines. They have a nice growl.

Egad on the tire change!

From an engine longevity standpoint the general consensus (at least back in the day) has always been the more cylinders the longer the engines life.

Not sure how true that is now, and not sure how really true it was back in the day. The CRX that Honda introduced in the Eighties went forever on its little four cylinder -- I know people that ran their CRXs ragged to nearly 300,000 miles.

But I was not necessarily equating smaller engines with smaller power; that is the mindset that has to change among car enthusiasts. I was talking about the type of smaller engine that companies like Ford are putting into cars like the Fusion or Focus. Those engines are not designed for performance, period, regardless of size; they are designed for fuel economy. The simple fact is that regardless of how attractive the car may be, there simply IS no performance option for a Fusion right now. The Focus and the Fiesta do have turbocharged ST versions, but that is it (though there are the old rumors of a 320hp RS version of the Focus eventually -- on a FWD, that would yield just enough torque steer to plant you in the next state or province every time you step on the gas.) So barring ST versions of any of the above, all engines are economy engines. There simply are no other choices. And to be fair, like I said, we can deal with it. I have had to put my foot down on my new Fusion a few times in the recent weather, and while it is hardly a racecar it is not completely sluggish.



http://jalopnik.com/a-zany-320-horsepower-2015-ford-focus-rs-may-be-coming-1529435804

I thought the Fusion has a turbocharged four available. Granted, I believe it is an eco-boost, but it should be good for 200-plus horsepower. I'd expect around 240. That's not going to turn the car into a race car, particularly when the only transmission is an automatic, but it shouldn't be too bad for punting around town.

The Focus in Europe is available with a Cosworth-supplied engine. The car is also tweaked by Cosworth. I can't recall if that's the RS version or not. But, needless to say, it is anything but slow. It runs with Evos and STIs and others. A true hot hatch.

In theory, large engines turn more slowly and do not need to be as high strung as smaller engines to develop horsepower. Forced induction does get around that, but the driver must pay attention to the rev range so as to stay in the car's peak power range (assuming performance is the goal). Still, when engineered and built properly, a small engine can last a long time. Honda doesn't even really go the forced-induction route, and they have high-revving fours that last decades. I guess having experience building race motorcycles helps.

I stand corrected about the turbo. I must have been confusing it with the complaints that I read about the lack of a V6. But I did look it up and it has an available AWD to go with that turbo, which could yield a pretty decently-performing car. One issue with modern fuel efficient cars and fuel efficient engines is that they are insanely light, and the Fusion is no exception. I have the base Ecoboost engine in mine, and I have been spinning my front wheels constantly all winter. Granted, it has been one of the worst winters in ages down here, but that thing spins out on ANYTHING. Put 200-plus horses into it, and it would spin like a bastard on dry pavement.

That is another reason why that 320hp version of the Focus seems like sheer madness -- a glorious, brilliant kind of madness, but madness nonetheless. That kind of torque steer and that kind of a light front end would yield pretty epic burnouts.

East is not impressed with the direction of the conversation . . .

Unless there is some serious limited-slip and traction control built into the Focus, it could be a nightmare to handle. Sticky tires would help, though. I drove a Mazdaspeed 3 and it has a little over 260 horsepower. It's also only front-wheel drive and it really wasn't fun to drive. Even in third, the car would torque steer. Torque steer at 60-plus mile per hour in unnerving, particularly when going around a bend. The pick up was impressive, but I couldn't be bothered with wrestling the steering wheel. That said, I think the Speed 3 is a particularly bad example of too much horsepower in a small, front-wheel drive car. I think other cars do it better, and that might be true of the Focus.

Well, you have to get used to a different driving experience no matter what. Sticky tires would indeed help, but you are still going to spin on ice and snow in situations where you would not in a car with a heavier front end. And of course traction control is a help and a hindrance there. Ford does not appear to have simple one-button way to shut it off, either, unlike my older Buick Lacrosse -- and for all I know, newer LaCrosses require more tedious drilling down on menus like the Fords do.

I got the front end of my Fusion up on a snow bank during the vicious storm that hit here a couple of weeks ago. The Village had plowed the road in our development, or so it seemed, and I was able to leave in the morning to go to the gym and our main plant, then I came back home to take a shower before leaving again to do my route. That was about 10-12 total miles of driving that probably took well over an hour, and it was finally light when I left the development, but still snowing and blowing like mad so there was horrible visibility. Our development has two entrances, the main one in front and another side entrance, and silly me I assumed that since they had plowed hours ago at that point, that everything would be plowed. Especially minor details like entrances and exits. I literally could not see the road or the snow banks on the sides and had to drive mostly on faith, but when I made the corner to the exit the nose of the car suddenly rose a couple feet in the air and I came to a dead stop. Turned out that had driven right up on the bank.

I spent an hour-and-a-half shoveling and doing everything that I could to get it unstuck, but ultimately had to call someone in from the plant to come over with a truck and pull me off. I could shovel the wheels out, but could do nothing to remove the wedge of compressed slushy snow that was between them and jacking up the front end. I still tried, but even shutting of the traction control there was just no way to get the car rocking. The fact that shifting from forward to reverse and back is super sluggish does not help, but I also identified another interesting issue: electronic steering. Part of rocking a car out of snow involved feeling the directions that the car may be moving, and responding quickly to roll into that direction. But you get absolutely no feedback from the wheel under circumstances like that and cannot even tell which way the wheels are pointing. With all of that, it was one of the first times that I have ever failed to get a car unstuck. I even got the RWD 300 that Eve drove out of two feet of slush one time.

And I got yer Ford torque fer ya right here, pal:

http://jalopnik.com/the-fastest-car-ive-ever-been-in-is-this-600-hp-ford-f-1002188365

Indeed!

There is no getting away from it: Rear-wheel provides a better driving experience. All-wheel has it's place. Front-wheel does feel like a compromise, although I have driven cars that do it well, and I think front-wheel works for most drivers under normal driving situations.

Well, for winter driving I have always said that in lieu of a 4WD or AWD I would prefer a FWD with a stick. I have never failed to get myself out of a any situation with that. Mind you, that was with older cars with heavier front ends, so who knows now?

But as far as performance goes, while the RWDs are definitely more fun I have wondered about them new-fangled AWDs with adaptive systems that change the power balance betwen front and rear depending on transmission modes or conditions. Theoretically you could have the best of all worlds there, but as I do not see that trickling down to the kinds of cars that I am willing to spend money on I will probably never find out!


By the way, back to the CTS in reference to RWD and winter driving, during the epic snowstorm down here a few weeks ago I was in my Fusion leaving a town and trying to get onto a freeway when I saw something interesting. It was an overpass with a roundabout but with an exit lane for the freeway preceeding the roundabout. The road was slightly uphill at that point and a truck was stuck blocking the ramp. It took a minute for it to dawn on those of us waiting behind it that we could still pull out back into the main lane, enter the roundabout and take its entry into the ramp instead to get around the truck. Right ahead of me was a Cadillac CTS that I think was the Vsport, though I could not tell for certain with the snow covering the logos on back. I tried to get around it quickly before the driver had the same idea since I did not want to follow a RWD from a dead stop going uphill, but he/she pulled out just a split second before I did. That thing shot right up the road without the slightest fishtailing, and it was probably not spinning the tires any more than I was. I am assuming that it was in snow and ice mode, and if so, I am impressed!

Trans am cherps the tires just pulling out of a side street (that is part of the fun) in dry conditions. Not because of the power it makes or because it is rear wheel drive. A. The car is very light in the rear. B. The suspension is old and worn and C. The biggest it has a solid rear axel. Most modern rwd cars have an indipendent rear suspension. IRS. With the exception of the mustang. Most IRS cars hook up really well.

Well hey, the '77 T-Bird with a 400 in it that I had years ago would spin if you sneezed on the gas pedal. I drove it when I was still living down in the Twin Cities during a snowy winter in the late Nineties and never got stuck once. In fact, I drove into the Uptown area to visit one of my favorite restaurants, parked in mounds of snow and slush, helped a Somali family get their Fiat out of the same street, then got back into my T-Bird and drove right out. And they had a FWD with a stick!

I suppose a solid rear axle is fun for spinning tires, but cornering is hampered, generally. It can be like trying to run with your shoelaces tied together.

Iago: I have AWD in my car, but it's not as sophisticated as the setups I think you're describing (e.g., what you'd find in an EVO, GT-R or 911). I also get a lot of snow where I live. Heck, I ride on snow tires for half the year. Needless to say, I'm quite pleased to have AWD, particularly with snow tires and a stick.

Even some supercars are using variable AWD drivetrains instead of strict RWD. (I suppose it is pure anti-Porsche bias on my part that I do not count it among the "supercars.") I know that I read a review of one recently, but I am blanking on whose it was. So instead I offer you some RWD bliss:





So how does your AWD rank on the "fun meter" for non-winter driving?