"American" vs. "Import"

[blakscorpion21]

Originally Posted by k3smostwanted

let me ask you this, could you imagine the hell that american car companies would catch if they started to lighten up their mustangs, camaros, etc and put V6's in them. american car companies do well in the US because of the large displacement V8's they make and the stigma associated with them in this country.

why lighten up your car built deliberately to attract american buyers when you can create a computer system to drop half it's cylinders when trying to preserve gas?

also remember, some of these american V8's are competing if not beating the competition's smaller displacement engines in efficiency, producing the same power.

when speaking of SUV's and Truck's...the design of these vehicles makes it dramatically harder to create good gas mileage because of many reasons. aerodynamics being a large factor, low end gearing, low end torque production, and all the way down to how the drivetrain is built to fulfill the vehicles job.

if you notice, some of the competition are offering 4 cylinders and V6's with lacking power to give the owner the fulfillment of driving an SUV without the need of towing, hauling, or anything the vehicle was originally designed. american companies are also offering smaller displacement motors to compete with these but it is just recently that Import Manufacturers have gotten into competing with american companies at their own game, building a heavy duty truck. these same attempts aren't doing any better in gas mileage than american companies.

i think, mostly every manufactuer is on the same page. if they werent they wouldnt be in business or they working extremely hard to get on that page. the only companies that arent on this age are smaller companies that advertise to niche markets and not overall sales.

i probably should have jumped in this conversation alot sooner but reguardless this is my 2 cents.

exactly were not saying lower the cylinders. just make the car lighter. imagine if you took a z28 kept the 320hp v8 lowed the weight to say 3000 lbs down from about 3500. it would be faster (if it runs 0-60 in aroound 5 seconds stock, at 3klbs it would run closer to 4.5.) it would handle much better, and it would get several more mpg. all this without sacraficing anything.

as far as suvs go anyone who drives them as a dd is a little anyways. unless you offroad, suvs are useless. and im not saying that imports build more fuel ifficent engines as much as they utilize them better through gearing, lightweight, etc. hence what you mentioned about japanesee trucks.

[k3smostwanted]

Originally Posted by Nayr747

No one's saying they have to replace their 8 cylinders with 4 or 6. They just need to lower their weight. And a lower displacement motor like an I4 can make the same power as the higher displacement 8 cylinder by using a turbo or supercharger, for the same price. If you look at cars by year, market, and price, turbocharged I4's run times that are the same or better than the V8's , with a few exeptions of course.

But anyway why wouldn't people like a lowe weight car? There are no disadvantages, aside from running things over when they get in your way .

turbos and superchargers can jeopardize the car's future. the are notorious for having more bugs in their systems to work out, they heighten the risk of failure due to more heat, and they also add a bit to the price due to the price of the parts and the extra tad bit of engineering that goes into making the system as close to perfection as possible. adding displacement and removing as many risks as possible enables the car to be cheaper and more reliable. american companies play on the border of reliability now, imagine them adding more components and heat to their engine bays.

as for weight, they probably could make their cars lighter. but remember, safety equipment, sturdiness, price, and comfort directly relate with weight. they dont feel they need to is the point that i am trying to make maybe. the charger or the fusion or whatever car you choose, the bottom line is that if they lowered the weight, this may add to the price, lessen the comfort, remove safety equipment, and lessen the sturdiness. also, why change something that more or less isn't a large concern of their buyers? for example, if you have a guy looking at the Charger SRT-8...i think if you told him that his 425hp hemi powered 4 door sedan weighs in at 200lbs greater than its competition but it also has 100 more hp than its competition and costs $10k less.

Originally Posted by blakscorpion21

exactly were not saying lower the cylinders. just make the car lighter. imagine if you took a z28 kept the 320hp v8 lowed the weight to say 3000 lbs down from about 3500. it would be faster (if it runs 0-60 in aroound 5 seconds stock, at 3klbs it would run closer to 4.5.) it would handle much better, and it would get several more mpg. all this without sacraficing anything.

so, you honestly think that dropping 500lbs off a vehicles weight isnt going to sacrifice anything. first, i guarantee with ever pound you drop the price is going to go up without a doubt. therefore, possibly dropping sales due to affordibility and bumping it to the next bracket in competition. i honestly do not know what all would have to be sacrificed to drop 500lbs of weight off the camaro but i guarantee it will sacrifice ALOT of things.

do i think that american companies could drop a little weight off of their cars? yes
do i think they should? no
why? because their buyers do not care and they are running a business not a charity

[JunkTitleGolf]

Not sure if this point has been covered or talked about. But when I was reading this thread at the beginning...(I read maybe 3 or 4 pages and thought to myself all this has been is bash on Mitsu. Anyways) The Audi TT that got the horrible gas mileage is AWD...not sure if that makes a big difference or not but I think it should make some. Also, the weight differences not sure if it's helping my cause or the other cause. Ahem...I myself would have to chose Euro's over domestics and imports from the Asia area. My first car was an 84 325i Bimmer with the straight 6...the odometer stopped working and it still continued to go. I think it stopped about 184,000 miles or so. The only reason why it stopped running was me not paying attention to it over heating. I drove it without a water pump belt for about 30-45 miles before it quit. Second car was a 1986 Plymoth (spelling) horizon. Yes I know a terrible car to begin with but it did do good for here to there situations...unless the here to there was on the interstate doing 70-75 mph. Blew that engine. Replaced the engine and the replacement engine blew...well, a piston somehow got a hole the size of a quartar in it. 3rd car...1995 Ford Escort...automatic first auto car I ever owned...the tranny went out and replaced it and the replacement tranny (from junk yard) was well, junk. My current car a 1995 VW Golf being salvaged and everything runs the best out of all of my cars. It was totaled from a head on collision. And I am driving it daily now almost redlining it when I shift and I am seeing no signs of wear or tear. Another reason I would chose Euro's is there really isn't any swap parts from one chassis to another...except some VW parts like jetta and Golf front bumpers...but at least thats in the same company. Unlike Mazda trucks and Ford Rangers being twins. I just like the reliability and performance that Euro's give. And I have driven Japanese cars. My girlfriends dad owns a 1995 Del Sol with the Vtec motor. Very torquey and I love it...I just don't think I could personally drive one daily. Yeah their great for a drive down the road and driving the road hard but that's about it for me.

[Nayr747]

Originally Posted by k3smostwanted

turbos and superchargers can jeopardize the car's future. the are notorious for having more bugs in their systems to work out, they heighten the risk of failure due to more heat, and they also add a bit to the price due to the price of the parts and the extra tad bit of engineering that goes into making the system as close to perfection as possible. adding displacement and removing as many risks as possible enables the car to be cheaper and more reliable. american companies play on the border of reliability now, imagine them adding more components and heat to their engine bays.

as for weight, they probably could make their cars lighter. but remember, safety equipment, sturdiness, price, and comfort directly relate with weight. they dont feel they need to is the point that i am trying to make maybe. the charger or the fusion or whatever car you choose, the bottom line is that if they lowered the weight, this may add to the price, lessen the comfort, remove safety equipment, and lessen the sturdiness. also, why change something that more or less isn't a large concern of their buyers? for example, if you have a guy looking at the Charger SRT-8...i think if you told him that his 425hp hemi powered 4 door sedan weighs in at 200lbs greater than its competition but it also has 100 more hp than its competition and costs $10k less.



so, you honestly think that dropping 500lbs off a vehicles weight isnt going to sacrifice anything. first, i guarantee with ever pound you drop the price is going to go up without a doubt. therefore, possibly dropping sales due to affordibility and bumping it to the next bracket in competition. i honestly do not know what all would have to be sacrificed to drop 500lbs of weight off the camaro but i guarantee it will sacrifice ALOT of things.

do i think that american companies could drop a little weight off of their cars? yes
do i think they should? no
why? because their buyers do not care and they are running a business not a charity

Big displacement cars such as the Corvette, Mustang, and Comaro/Firebird have always received worse than average reliability. Also, the added heat a turbo makes by compressing the air can be (and has to be on most motors) cooled by an intercooler. I said the same power could be made with forced induction for cheaper than displacement because a V8 likely costs more to produce than a motor of half the size, and a factory turbo system is relatively cheap (I can even buy a new Mitsu turbo capable of 400whp for less than $600, and the one that comes stock on my car can be had for almost nothing).

As for weight; How could the Celica weigh 2,500 lbs, a '95 Civic weigh 2,200, a '06 Honda Fit weigh less than 2,500, etc, etc? My car for instance does not have any good reason for weighing 3,200+ lbs while a comparable car of the same year with the same features weighs 500+ lbs less. How can the Honda Insight weigh less than 2,000 lbs and cost less than $20k new? All these cars were pretty cheap and I'm sure had all the same features if not more than the much heavier competition. The fact is there is no actual reason why these American sedans weigh 4,000+ lbs, and it does have drawbacks such as horrible turning abilities. Cars in general continue to increase in weight with every year. Cars like the Civic just keep increasing their dimensions beyond any recognition of their starting point or purpose. Gas mileage continues to go down as it has for 30+ years. This isn't good for your pocket book or the planet, or certain aspects of perfomance. There are benefits to reducing a vehicle's weight. Some manufacturers just can't see that.

[blakscorpion21]

Originally Posted by k3smostwanted

turbos and superchargers can jeopardize the car's future. the are notorious for having more bugs in their systems to work out, they heighten the risk of failure due to more heat, and they also add a bit to the price due to the price of the parts and the extra tad bit of engineering that goes into making the system as close to perfection as possible. adding displacement and removing as many risks as possible enables the car to be cheaper and more reliable. american companies play on the border of reliability now, imagine them adding more components and heat to their engine bays.

as for weight, they probably could make their cars lighter. but remember, safety equipment, sturdiness, price, and comfort directly relate with weight. they dont feel they need to is the point that i am trying to make maybe. the charger or the fusion or whatever car you choose, the bottom line is that if they lowered the weight, this may add to the price, lessen the comfort, remove safety equipment, and lessen the sturdiness. also, why change something that more or less isn't a large concern of their buyers? for example, if you have a guy looking at the Charger SRT-8...i think if you told him that his 425hp hemi powered 4 door sedan weighs in at 200lbs greater than its competition but it also has 100 more hp than its competition and costs $10k less.



so, you honestly think that dropping 500lbs off a vehicles weight isnt going to sacrifice anything. first, i guarantee with ever pound you drop the price is going to go up without a doubt. therefore, possibly dropping sales due to affordibility and bumping it to the next bracket in competition. i honestly do not know what all would have to be sacrificed to drop 500lbs of weight off the camaro but i guarantee it will sacrifice ALOT of things.

do i think that american companies could drop a little weight off of their cars? yes
do i think they should? no
why? because their buyers do not care and they are running a business not a charity

its not like american cars are known for comfort and luxury anyways. an easy and cheaper way to lower weight is make the car smaller. no one needs a sedan with the dimensions of an suv. look at the 7th generation celica it is only 2500lbs even with all the new technology in it. it is still comfortable, has safety equipnent, and retains enough rigidness to outhandle the crap out of most domestic cars. it is a little on the expensive size for what it is. but thats cause it is such a complete package.

yea sure there is no need for them to drop weight because most people are ignorant enough to pay for a charger r/t when it has a lower power to weight ratio, less reliability, worse gas mileage, and less refinement than a honda accord.

[k3smostwanted]

Originally Posted by Nayr747

Big displacement cars such as the Corvette, Mustang, and Comaro/Firebird have always received worse than average reliability. Also, the added heat a turbo makes by compressing the air can be (and has to be on most motors) cooled by an intercooler. I said the same power could be made with forced induction for cheaper than displacement because a V8 likely costs more to produce than a motor of half the size, and a factory turbo system is relatively cheap (I can even buy a new Mitsu turbo capable of 400whp for less than $600, and the one that comes stock on my car can be had for almost nothing).

im not talking about heat within the turbo system, im talking about the heat in the engine bay that the turbo creates. ever seen a turbo manifold and turbo after a hard run? the thing is, it may not be the turbo and components that are effected by the heat. it is the problems that the heat can create, such as wires and sensor failure.

As for weight; How could the Celica weigh 2,500 lbs, a '95 Civic weigh 2,200, a '06 Honda Fit weigh less than 2,500, etc, etc? My car for instance does not have any good reason for weighing 3,200+ lbs while a comparable car of the same year with the same features weighs 500+ lbs less. How can the Honda Insight weigh less than 2,000 lbs and cost less than $20k new? All these cars were pretty cheap and I'm sure had all the same features if not more than the much heavier competition. The fact is there is no actual reason why these American sedans weigh 4,000+ lbs, and it does have drawbacks such as horrible turning abilities. Cars in general continue to increase in weight with every year. Cars like the Civic just keep increasing their dimensions beyond any recognition of their starting point or purpose. Gas mileage continues to go down as it has for 30+ years. This isn't good for your pocket book or the planet, or certain aspects of perfomance. There are benefits to reducing a vehicle's weight. Some manufacturers just can't see that.

ask the consumers that are buying these large oversize sedan if they would trade in their large sedan for a smaller civic with less trunk room, seat room, head room, less power, etc. you have to remember that american companies market their vehicles to a specific consumer, otherwise the market would be flooded with little identical economy sedans. the person wanting a large sedan to haul $400 worth of groceries and allow their 10 year old to lay across the backseat while on road trips would have nothing to buy. not to mention the simple fact that american companies have a compatible car to combat the civic or celica or whatever. compare the weights of maximas, avalons, camrys, etc with the weights of ford fusions, chargers, etc. i bet the weights are very comparable.

i am not saying that the weight of a lighter car isn't beneficial, but if the sacrifices effect the market for the car then why lower the weight when the consumer does not care.

[zx2guy]

this isnt a part of the conversation at hand but i think there is more to it.

believe it or not te point im about to make comes from my mother, the javilin, and charger girl of the 70's ( good times with muscle cars) anyway we were talking about this. and she made the point of when toyota cars were made in japan and imported, the damn things would last forever, 600,000 w/o a rebuild wasnt an imaginary figure. and they could get 60 mpg.

but then when they started to make them here, 100,000 and your motor was in dire need of rebuild. now this spikes my interest because it makes me remember: edison's light bulb still works, and was eventually designed to not burn out, then big business took over as said... this cant happen... thus we buy tons of light bulbs a year. the relivence of that is... do you think that this way of think is also playing a role im modern vehicles?

[Nayr747]

Originally Posted by k3smostwanted

im not talking about heat within the turbo system, im talking about the heat in the engine bay that the turbo creates. ever seen a turbo manifold and turbo after a hard run? the thing is, it may not be the turbo and components that are effected by the heat. it is the problems that the heat can create, such as wires and sensor failure.

On a factory turbocharged engine this should not be a problem. In all of my 2 1/2+ years of researching turbo DSMs I have never heard of anything like that. Any extra heat can be solved by using a vented hood like on the Evo. But if you change how it came from the factory like taking the heat shilds off the exhaust manifold and o2 housing then the heat could cause problems such as the alternator going out.

Originally Posted by k3smostwanted

ask the consumers that are buying these large oversize sedan if they would trade in their large sedan for a smaller civic with less trunk room, seat room, head room, less power, etc. you have to remember that american companies market their vehicles to a specific consumer, otherwise the market would be flooded with little identical economy sedans. the person wanting a large sedan to haul $400 worth of groceries and allow their 10 year old to lay across the backseat while on road trips would have nothing to buy. not to mention the simple fact that american companies have a compatible car to combat the civic or celica or whatever. compare the weights of maximas, avalons, camrys, etc with the weights of ford fusions, chargers, etc. i bet the weights are very comparable.

i am not saying that the weight of a lighter car isn't beneficial, but if the sacrifices effect the market for the car then why lower the weight when the consumer does not care.

The Honda Fit is very small and light (less than 2,500 lbs) yet it has all the room of an SUV. The difference is it can't go off road, but this is useless anyways because people never use this, they just pay more for no reason. The Fit and other cars such as the Toyota Yaris and Matrix among other "micro-minivan" looking cars also cost very little (Fit is $13-14k), and get more than threee times the gas mileage of most SUVs. I think most of the weight of SUVs come from their truck based platform, allowing them to be better off road. But again no one ever uses this feature, they just pay for it because they want to know that they could if they had to, and because everyone else buys them.

As for the comparison with "Asian" cars:
'05 Magnum: 4,336 lbs
17/23 mpg
'06 Charger RT: 4,031
17/25
'05 Chrysler 300C: 4,046
17/23
'03 Accord: 3,265
20/30
04 Altima: 3,197
21/26
04 Maxima: 3,436
20/29
05 Avalon XLS: 3,560
22/31
05 Camry XLE: 3,428
20/28
04 Lexus GS300: 3,649
18/24

Though there are some lighter "Domestics" and some heavier "Imports" than these, so some of them are about the same weight. But I don't see any asian sedans weighing 4,000+ lbs.

Originally Posted by zx2guy

this isnt a part of the conversation at hand but i think there is more to it.

believe it or not te point im about to make comes from my mother, the javilin, and charger girl of the 70's ( good times with muscle cars) anyway we were talking about this. and she made the point of when toyota cars were made in japan and imported, the damn things would last forever, 600,000 w/o a rebuild wasnt an imaginary figure. and they could get 60 mpg.

but then when they started to make them here, 100,000 and your motor was in dire need of rebuild. now this spikes my interest because it makes me remember: edison's light bulb still works, and was eventually designed to not burn out, then big business took over as said... this cant happen... thus we buy tons of light bulbs a year. the relivence of that is... do you think that this way of think is also playing a role im modern vehicles?

That's a really good point. I have heard that auto manufacturers design their cars to last a specific time period or mileage before breaking now. I don't remember the source but it was reputable. This does make economic sense for the companies. So when Toyota came into the U.S market they may have adopted this policy to be able to competitive. As for the light bulb, I've heard that too. I think the only reason they break is because the piece of metal is not thick enough. They could also use more than one filiment. But in my experience, if you take a three way bulb and leave it on the second brightest setting it will never go out. If this really works then everyone could just buy a three way bulb that goes up to 90 watts and use it in the 60 watt fixtures and you would never have to buy a bulb again. Still less efficient than fluorescents but better for the landfills.

[blakscorpion21]

Originally Posted by zx2guy

this isnt a part of the conversation at hand but i think there is more to it.

believe it or not te point im about to make comes from my mother, the javilin, and charger girl of the 70's ( good times with muscle cars) anyway we were talking about this. and she made the point of when toyota cars were made in japan and imported, the damn things would last forever, 600,000 w/o a rebuild wasnt an imaginary figure. and they could get 60 mpg.

but then when they started to make them here, 100,000 and your motor was in dire need of rebuild. now this spikes my interest because it makes me remember: edison's light bulb still works, and was eventually designed to not burn out, then big business took over as said... this cant happen... thus we buy tons of light bulbs a year. the relivence of that is... do you think that this way of think is also playing a role im modern vehicles?

yea thats true, the old celicas, like the rwd generations were amazingly reliable and even my 5th gen is very reliable 200k on stock motor is pretty common, mines up to about 180k with no signs of stopping. but in the newer 7th gen. celicas i have heard of a lot of mechanical problems around 100k theyre still more reliable than most cars but just not what they used to be.

[blakscorpion21]

Originally Posted by Nayr747

On a factory turbocharged engine this should not be a problem. In all of my 2 1/2+ years of researching turbo DSMs I have never heard of anything like that. Any extra heat can be solved by using a vented hood like on the Evo. But if you change how it came from the factory like taking the heat shilds off the exhaust manifold and o2 housing then the heat could cause problems such as the alternator going out.



The Honda Fit is very small and light (less than 2,500 lbs) yet it has all the room of an SUV. The difference is it can't go off road, but this is useless anyways because people never use this, they just pay more for no reason. The Fit and other cars such as the Toyota Yaris and Matrix among other "micro-minivan" looking cars also cost very little (Fit is $13-14k), and get more than threee times the gas mileage of most SUVs. I think most of the weight of SUVs come from their truck based platform, allowing them to be better off road. But again no one ever uses this feature, they just pay for it because they want to know that they could if they had to, and because everyone else buys them.

As for the comparison with "Asian" cars:
'05 Magnum: 4,336 lbs
17/23 mpg
'06 Charger RT: 4,031
17/25
'05 Chrysler 300C: 4,046
17/23
'03 Accord: 3,265
20/30
04 Altima: 3,197
21/26
04 Maxima: 3,436
20/29
05 Avalon XLS: 3,560
22/31
05 Camry XLE: 3,428
20/28
04 Lexus GS300: 3,649
18/24

Though there are some lighter "Domestics" and some heavier "Imports" than these, so some of them are about the same weight. But I don't see any asian sedans weighing 4,000+ lbs.



That's a really good point. I have heard that auto manufacturers design their cars to last a specific time period or mileage before breaking now. I don't remember the source but it was reputable. This does make economic sense for the companies. So when Toyota came into the U.S market they may have adopted this policy to be able to competitive. As for the light bulb, I've heard that too. I think the only reason they break is because the piece of metal is not thick enough. They could also use more than one filiment. But in my experience, if you take a three way bulb and leave it on the second brightest setting it will never go out. If this really works then everyone could just buy a three way bulb that goes up to 90 watts and use it in the 60 watt fixtures and you would never have to buy a bulb again. Still less efficient than fluorescents but better for the landfills.

you got to give it to the vette z06 though. it only weighs about 3200 lbs. american engineering at its best.

[drunken monkey]

one thing that makes me have respect for the corvette is that in a world where cars are getting bigger with every new developement, the C6 is actually smaller then the C5.

[blakscorpion21]

you dont have respect for it because it can outrun cars twice its price?????????

[Vettribution87]

Originally Posted by Nayr747

Big displacement cars such as the Corvette, Mustang, and Comaro/Firebird have always received worse than average reliability. Also, the added heat a turbo makes by compressing the air can be (and has to be on most motors) cooled by an intercooler. I said the same power could be made with forced induction for cheaper than displacement because a V8 likely costs more to produce than a motor of half the size, and a factory turbo system is relatively cheap (I can even buy a new Mitsu turbo capable of 400whp for less than $600, and the one that comes stock on my car can be had for almost nothing).

I am sure that for a given number of horsepower there is generally more torque generated from a larger displacement N/A motor compared to a smaller displacement F/I motor. This is likely attributed to the extra reciprocating mass of the larger engine allowing it to piggy-back on is own reciprocating inertia and hence produce a bigger torque figure.
Larger N/A engines will also generally have a wider more linear power curve as oppose to the more narrow and peaky small displacement, F/I motor. Whichever one is better depends on the requirement and its application.

Also, your typical US V8 is not likely to be more expensive to produce then your typical Japanese I4.
Firstly, the US V8 is more mechanically simple often sticking to OHV, 2 valves-per-cylinder layouts. The DOHC multi-valve 4cyls are by essence more complex and this can increase tooling costs.

Secondly, the US V8 is used in a wide variety of different applications. The small block Chevy for example can be found in cars, trucks, vans, boats, specialty off-road vehicles, ect. This versatility allows manufactures more use from an engines existing tooling so they don’t need to charge as much per engine, as would be the case with a more specific design.

Thirdly, the modern OHV V8’s are surprisingly small in size considering their displacement. As nobodies paying for the empty space in the cylinders & block it goes to show that from a cost-of-materials point of view, not that much money is saved in the production of a smaller (but more sophisticated) 4cyl engine. Adding a turbo system to this 4cyl will certainly increase the unit cost to greater then that of the V8.

Originally Posted by Nayr747

On a factory turbocharged engine this should not be a problem. In all of my 2 1/2+ years of researching turbo DSMs I have never heard of anything like that. Any extra heat can be solved by using a vented hood like on the Evo. But if you change how it came from the factory like taking the heat shilds off the exhaust manifold and o2 housing then the heat could cause problems such as the alternator going out.

What about aerodynamics?
Some turbo charged cars (especially heavily modded ones) necessitate placing a large intercooler up front and at a near right angle to the direction of airflow.
This can make the car less fuel efficient as well as lowering it's top speed. A vented hood can even exacerbate this problem.

[Nayr747]

Originally Posted by Vettribution87

I am sure that for a given number of horsepower there is generally more torque generated from a larger displacement N/A motor compared to a smaller displacement F/I motor. This is likely attributed to the extra reciprocating mass of the larger engine allowing it to piggy-back on is own reciprocating inertia and hence produce a bigger torque figure.
Larger N/A engines will also generally have a wider more linear power curve as oppose to the more narrow and peaky small displacement, F/I motor. Whichever one is better depends on the requirement and its application.

Even though people really don't want to believe this, torque does nothing to actually move a car foreward. You can have all the torque in the world and not do one ounce of work with it. The minite it does work, it is expressed in horsepower.

As for the powerband; V8's generally can't rev over 5-6k, while I4's routinely go 8.5-10k. Power increases as you go higher in the rpm range which is why high reving Hondas with no torque whatsoever can still run 10s, and why F1 cars rev to 18,000.
Look what happens when this 601AWHP Evo races a 644RWHP Z06: http://srvidz.vidiac.com/video/wm/15...F9B35F6368.htm
They stay almost exactly side by side, and the Evo is even 100+ lbs heavier than the Z06.
Here the same Evo races two 600+RWHP Cobras: http://srvidz.vidiac.com/video/wm/FC...E2C57E2AA9.htm
And here it races a 667RWHP Cobra: http://srvidz.vidiac.com/video/1BF87...CF61D2EB57.htm

For the cost to produce the motors; neither of us actually know which one costs more. 4-cylinders such as the 4g63 in DSMs have been in use for over 15 years and still going, and have been used in many different applications including trucks (in a slightly different form). But if you look at 4-cyl vs. 8-cyl cars by year, market, and price the 4-cyl's are quicker most of the time. I made a list of many of them in another thread but it's gone now.

As for aerodynamics; I would imagine it would make some amount of difference but how much I don't know. I doubt it would make much difference unless you're going 175+ mph. But who is giong to do that? Around a track or on the drag strip it shouldn't matter too much, or Evos/DSMs wouldn't own like they do. It's not like cars with V8's are aerodynamic anyways... other than the vet, and even it has flip up headlights until this year.

[CountryBoy Racer]

ok guys the fact of the matter is import cars are better. i have this arguement with my friends everyday. and you know what i win. honestly what would you rather have a nissan skyline GTR or a 06 vette. tell me you wouldnt pick that skyline over that vette in a heartbeat. the only american car i would drive is a srt4 and thats still sport compact. hey im not dissin im just gettin my 2 pennies in the jar.