I wasn't going to post again, but I can't help it, and I won't bother quoting, because, like you said, formatting would be difficult.
Anyways, you asked us to compare the 4G63 with a Ferrari engine of the same vintage claiming the 4G63 performed similarly, and I showed that the F-car V8 had more power and torque. If you want to argue weight, the F360 engine weighs ~390lbs (http://www.alfabb.com/bb/forums/engine-conversions/130791-ferrari-v8-into-105-stepnose-13.html see post 104). The 4G63, with turbo, intercooler etc weighs ~375 lbs (http://torontojdm.com/lite/cart.php?target=product&product_id=4299&category_id=96 lists the weight as 387lb, but I assume that included a pallet) so you're not saving much weight (the new 4B11 Mitsu only loses about 23lb). Packaging? A V8 with dry sump is going to be pretty short (in height) compared to a 4 cylinder with a similar crank stroke and a wet sump oil pan, but the difference is probably pretty much a wash. The lengths will similar since they're both 4 cylinders long, the F-car being slightly longer due to the banks being offset. As for width, the V8 intake is packaged in the V, and the exhaust manifolds sit almost completely underneath the banks, so they don't add much width. The intake on the Mitsu sticks out quite a bit, as does the exhaust/turbo on the other side. Yes, the 4G63 will be narrower, but probably not by a lot. Compared to a flat 12, yes the 4G63 could package a lot better but will still be down on power.
Yes, the 2005 FQ-400 makes about the same power as a Ferrari flat 12 from 1991, and falls slightly lower than a flat 12 from from 1994 (440hp). Again, however, you originally asked us to compare the 4G63 to Ferrari engines of the same vintage and the FQ-400 pales compared to the 2005 Ferrari 5.7L V12 making 530hp/434lb-ft or the 483hp/343lb-ft of the 4.3L V8. Yes, 400hp from a 2L is impressive, but again, the "ridiculous complexity" of the Ferrari engines seem justified to me since they thoroughly trounce most other engines of the same vintage. Yes, a boosted LS engine will make as much power with a little less complexity (fewer valves and cams, but you have to add in a few pushrods, a supercharger and intercooler system too) for less cost. GM does build impressive engines.
And just for fun, I'd say that the 4G63 may be more of a Rube Goldberg device than a Ferrari V8 (or 12). Yes, the V8 has 5 valves per cylinder (in some applications) compared to 4 for the 4G63, and yes it has 2 banks of cylinders instead of 1, but it doesn't even have variable valve timing or even VTEC like many lesser engines, whereas the turbo on the 4G63 is pretty Rube Goldberg-ish if you ask me.
"Lets take our exhaust gas, which we normally just dump, and we'll run it through a turbine. But right before the turbine, lets throw in a dump valve with an actuator just in case we don't want the exhaust to go through the turbine. Now, the shaft supporting the turbine will have some bearings, which need an oil feed, and lets flow some coolant around the oil to keep it from coking. Now, the shaft that the turbine rotates on, lets attach the other end to a compressor, and have the compressor force air into the engine. Now, because the compressor heats up the air, we'll route it through a heat exchanger to cool the air and we'll have coolant flowing through the heat exchanger to cool it down, but that requires us adding another heat exchanger in another part of the car to cool down the coolant, and a water pump to circulate it."
Oh, and you did insult Lamborghini engineers: "Lamborghini says "give me 550 hp" and their engineers come back with a massive weight, huge dimensions, 48 valves, four cams, basic design from 1965, no torque..." That's why I wrote the part about the Lamborghini engineering manager.
Sorry for the ridiculously long post again. Brevity is obviously not a strength of mine.
Bob
