BenK wrote:
Back on topic...think the larger displacement, NA'd, with variable displacement
will do better in the long run
Boils down to the level of stress on the components...even though Ford did beef
up the block, pistons, rods, crank, etc along with engine oil sprayed to the
underside of the pistons...still has a higher level of stress than a larger NA
with variable displacement.
Thanks for getting the thread back on topic, Ben.
I'm of the same mind as you, preferring larger displacement, coupled with a displacement on demand system.
In the days...1960's... prior to variable cubic capacity and /or the commonality of turbochargers on small engines, I always preferred a larger V8 engine...with a final drive ratio...say around 2.93 to 3.23....a standard 4 speed transmission.
Less revs on the highway, mildly tuned larger capacity V8 and manual 4 speed transmission.
Cars that come to mind that could be ordered with this setup would be ' early to mid '60's Mopars with 383 or 426 wedge, hydraulic lifters, single 4 barrel, not hemi( think around 365 hp).
My FIL bought new a '66 Meteor (similar to full size Mercury)with the 345 HP/ 428 cube FE series V8 and C6 automatic. Think he had around a 3.00 to 1 final drive, axle ratio. The Meteor was a Canadian market FoMoCo product.
I drove it from city to farm and back a fair amount and I loved the big torque at low and mid range. It wasn't a drag strip terror, just a nice, large, powerful car I could stretch out in and knock off the country miles quickly.
It was relaxing to drive at 85-90 mph (lonely prairie highways)...the engine not turning over too fast (for the times)....ok MPG, lot's of passing power.
There is something to be said, for a big block V8, with easy gearing.
