Yeah, Ford has managed to do a good job with the Ecoboost. It seems to fit into a number of niches very well -- including the Le Mans winning Ford GT
After writing my earlier comment, it got me to thinking about early introduction of what is current tech now, but bleeding edge hi tech (for the USA at least) when it was introduced amongst American manufacturers, and I realized I'd completely forgotten about one engine design that I've always felt has languished because of the way it was finally put into service -- GM's Northstar V8, which appeared as the 4.0L 32-valve V8 in the Olds Aurora and the 4.6L 32-valver in some Cadillac models. I've driven a Northstar Cadillac and I felt the engine gave very good performance, and I own a 1997 Olds Aurora (all the more reason why I'm surprised I didn't think of it) and I can state for the record that the 250 hp 4.0L in my Aurora is capable of quite spirited performance. (N.B. My Aurora was given to me. It was my mother's and she is no longer able to drive. I've owned it for a couple of years, and I was lucky enough to have been gifted a 20 year old car with 38,000 original miles. But it wasn't without its problems, one of which is potentially serious.) But the reason why I say it languished is, here you had, at the time of its introduction, which was the mid-90s, a V8 fully capable of wiping out its competition with its performance on the racetrack, and what did GM do: they inserted it into a couple of FWD platforms.
Sedan FWD platforms. The FWD Northstar Cadillac gave decent performance for what it was -- a heavy sedan with the misfortune of having an FWD configuration. But the Aurora was clearly dinged when GM decided to go with an FWD design with that car. Let's just take its suspension as a example: My car's suspension is totally inadequate, in stock trim, of being able to support that engine's capabilities, and this is with air shocks on the rear, no less. But then if power were being applied to the rear, then they may have been of some use. Sadly, there is almost nothing available that one can purchase to improve things. So, instead of it being a sport sedan capable of keeping up with Bimmers and Jaguars, instead it wallows around all over the place -- just what you'd expect from an American-designed sedan from the last half of the 20th century. No, if GM would have been smart, they'd have offered the Northstar with EFI and either a turbo or a supercharger, and an IRS suspension package as a Euro-spec option for the Camaro or TransAm -- or maybe even the Corvette (though the 'Vette already has IRS) -- or they should have just offered the Aurora the way it should have been offered -- as a RWD car with IRS. But nope, GM didn't do any of that. They just pissed it all away and finally discontinued their most technically advanced engine program in 2011. And the US auto manufacturers want to know why some of us prefer to buy European? Or Japanese? Or even Korean? Well Duh?! When they do stupid stuff like that, they're just running us off, is all they're doing.
---------- Post added 08-08-18 at 11:14 PM ----------
Originally posted by lesmore49 My other bike was my first OHC engine, a '78 Yamaha 500cc OHC single.
My second OHC engine was my 1981 Yamaha XS650. My first was a Volvo 745Turbo-Intercooled.
Quote: In the '60's I was mostly into 2 stroke motorcycles, which really progressed technologically in the '60's, thanks mostly to the East German concern MZ and their racing engineer, Walter Kaaden. He understood principles of sound waves and was one of the first to develop expansion chambers for high performance 2 strokes. Both Suzuki and Yamaha street and racing 2 stroke engines benefited in a round about way, from MZ developed technology. I had a '60's Yamaha sport YDS3 2 stroke twin which belted out about 2 hp per cubic inch, not bad for an engine 50 odd years ago.
Two stroke engines unfortunately due to their image as polluters are pretty well a dead end engine now. Too bad IMO, as I think if development had continued the 2 stroke engine would be a very viable engine for modern times. .
I agree about the unfortunate demise of the 2-stroke, although it is still very much alive and well in other parts of the world (read China and India) that aren't so concerned about pollution as the rest of us.
In the 60s, I was mostly into bumming friends' Hondas for rides, which I did often. Knew how to ride at 14, didn't learn how to drive until 16. Never had much experience with 2-strokes, though. About their possibly premature demise, though -- it's just gas engine two-strokes that are faced with the ban. There's still two-stroke diesels everywhere. And they don't smoke anymore than other types of diesels. No, the way I see it is the basic design of the gasoline powered two stroke needs to be rethought. All gasoline engine two strokes that I know of draw their gas-air intake mixture in through the crankcase, which is why oil must be mixed with the gasoline, cuz if it weren't, it would carry the oil in the crankcase away with the intake gasses, drying out the engine's internals, and eventually causing it to seize. But I've always asked, why does the intake air have to pass through the crankcase? Is this the only way a 2-stroke can function? Seems to me it isn't, but I'm no engineer, so . . .