 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Dodge / Dodge Cars / October 2007Hemi Challenger
have you guys been checking out the new Challenger? I definitely am really thinking hard about getting one. >have you guys been checking out the new Challenger? I definitely am really >thinking hard about getting one. I saw one - briefly - a couple of days ago on a customer test drive loop. It was bright red and gorgeous, and was hauling butt on the highway. Sounded awesome... /daytripper '05 hemi durango ltd >>have you guys been checking out the new Challenger? I definitely am really >>thinking hard about getting one. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > /daytripper > '05 hemi durango ltd The Mustang Guys are having kittens worried about having a car that will blow the doors off the Shelby GT500 Mustang. I love competition!! There goes GM with the new Camaro last to market and butt ugly too. >>>have you guys been checking out the new Challenger? I definitely am >>>really thinking hard about getting one. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The Mustang Guys are having kittens worried about having a car that > will blow the doors off the Shelby GT500 Mustang. This remains to be seen. And some still don't believe the Challenger will see production, but I hope they're wrong. Bottom line, the Challenger isn't competing with the GT500. > I love competition!! > There goes GM with the new Camaro last to market and butt ugly too. I'll give you that. >>>>have you guys been checking out the new Challenger? I definitely am >>>>really thinking hard about getting one. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >I'll give you that. Doh! I totally spaced on this thread - what I saw was a bright red Hemi Charger, not a Challenger. But doesn't the Challenger look remarkably like the old Barracuda? /daytripper '05 hemi durango >>>>>have you guys been checking out the new Challenger? I definitely am >>>>>really thinking hard about getting one. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >/daytripper >'05 hemi durango So did the original challenger. It was a bit longer than the Cuda if I rember correctly. They would have likely made the new car a 'Cuda if they hadn't killed Plymouth.  SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > But doesn't the Challenger look remarkably like the old Barracuda? Not at all. http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://content.answers.com/main/content/w p/en/2/29/1965_Plymouth_Barracuda_Formula_S.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.answers.com /topic/1965-plymouth-barracuda-formula-s-jpg&h=768&w=1008&sz=141&hl=en&start=9&u m=1&tbnid=NQ1Bc9dyZf3F8M:&tbnh=114&tbnw=150&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dplymouth%2Bbarrac uda%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN Patrick >> But doesn't the Challenger look remarkably like the old Barracuda? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Patrick Well, duh - so you managed to find a first gen model - the one model that decidedly has no resemblance to the Challenger concept car. I was referring to the E platform models from the early '70s. Like this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1972_Plymouth_Barracuda_340.jpg Compared to the more angular Challenger sheet metal on the same platform... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/1970_Dodge_Challenger_RT.jpg ...I think the new Challenger looks more like the 'Cuda, with the exception being the "grill", which is clearly modeled from the old Challenger nose... /daytripper '05 hemi durango > >> But doesn't the Challenger look remarkably like the old Barracuda? > >Not at all. > >http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://content.answers.com/mai... > Well, duh - so you managed to find a first gen model - the one model that > decidedly has no resemblance to the Challenger concept car. Well, sorry, when I think _old_ Barracuda, I naturally think first gen. And because I like them better. I like their quirky styling and trim size/weight. With a 340 mill, they're awesome little street machines. Patrick >>>> But doesn't the Challenger look remarkably like the old Barracuda? > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Patrick Quirky, is that what you call it? Cute... :oP Signature"Wow, I want a billion Dollars and a pet monkey!" - Dale Jarrett "Paul's vocabulary is rather large, but most of the words have no meaning in English" - Joe Canuck "Too bad it wasn't "personality theft"...you'd be immune." - Herb Tarlek >> But doesn't the Challenger look remarkably like the old Barracuda? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Patrick Not THAT old. Look at a 1972-1974 SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>>> have you guys been checking out the new Challenger? I definitely am >>>> really thinking hard about getting one. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > see production, but I hope they're wrong. Bottom line, the Challenger > isn't competing with the GT500. I'm not at all worried about a N/A Charger/Challenger blowing the doors off of a GT500. That engine in the GT500 is just a $25 blower pulley away from 600+ hp. Then if that isn't enough there is always the option of a Kenne Bell twin screw blower that will get you 800+ hp. Chrysler doesn't have a Hemi in anything they sell currently, or planned, that has a snowball's chance in hell of overpowering a blown 5.4L, 32-valve V-8 of the type that is in the GT500. It is basically the Ford GT engine with an iron block and a Roots blower instead of a twinscrew. I will say that Ford definitely knows how to build a supercharged V-8 that is extremely reliable and can put out some outrageous horsepower numbers with a few inexpensive tweaks and without even removing the valve covers. >> I love competition!! >> There goes GM with the new Camaro last to market and butt ugly too. > > I'll give you that. >>>>> have you guys been checking out the new Challenger? I definitely am >>>>> really thinking hard about getting one. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >> >> I'll give you that. lol a measly 5.4L Ford engine (probably out of a lawnboy mower) even with a blower will be a dog compared to a Hemi Challenger with the new 6.1L Hemi Challenger and besides Ford can only build about 30 of the GT500 Shelbys a year. Dodge will eat them for lunch in sales. How many guys/gals do you know that are willing to buy a GT500 for 22K dealer markup over the 47K sticker? Mustang is all decoration. Dodge will rule again with the Hemi.Well at least There will be lots of mustangs on Dodge used car lots in 2008. >>>>>> have you guys been checking out the new Challenger? I definitely am >>>>>> really thinking hard about getting one. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Mustang is all decoration. Dodge will rule again with the Hemi.Well at least > There will be lots of mustangs on Dodge used car lots in 2008. Do your homework before posting. If you did you would know the engine in the GT500 is choked from the factory. Ford had to detune it and put a Roots blower on it (instead of a twinscrew) to keep the horsepower at 500. With a $25 pulley swap it is capable of close to 600 hp. With a decent tune there is even more power to be had. The sad fact is you can get only so much power from a street driven 6.1L N/A engine unless you can somehow change the atmospheric pressure of the Earth. With a blown engine this is no longer a limitation. You do know there is very little difference in displacement between 5.4 liters and 6.1 liters? If 5.4 liters is measly then 6.1 liters is just a little above measly. You are comparing a 376 cubic inch engine to a 333 cubic inch engine. I'll take 333 cubic inches with a blower any day over 376 cubic inches naturally aspirated. Ford is selling every GT500 it makes. I wish they made more to keep the price down. It seems there are plenty of buyers at current prices. I won't be one of them though. If the Challenger is priced right and delivers good performance it will sell. However, if you think a naturally aspirated Hemi of any variety will out power a GT500 engine then you are going to be disappointed. Unless, of course, you know how to increase the atmospheric pressure of the Earth in the vicinity of that Challenger. Even then, the pressure increase would have to effect only the Challenger and not the GT500 running against it otherwise there is no advantage gained. ;) >>>>>> have you guys been checking out the new Challenger? I definitely am >>>>>> really thinking hard about getting one. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > Hemi.Well at least There will be lots of mustangs on Dodge used car lots > in 2008. If you want to drive a car with a Mexican So-Called "Hemi" LMFAO engine, have at it, I'll stick with the good old made-in-the USA Ford engine, thank you very much. > lol a measly 5.4L Ford engine (probably out of a lawnboy mower) even with a > blower will be a dog compared to a Hemi Challenger with the new 6.1L Hemi [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Mustang is all decoration. Dodge will rule again with the Hemi.Well at least > There will be lots of mustangs on Dodge used car lots in 2008. If you're still using the GT500 as a comparison I'd say you're under an incorrect assumption, especially if the 6 litre is as disappointing as the the 5 litre hemi. Signature"Wow, I want a billion Dollars and a pet monkey!" - Dale Jarrett "Paul's vocabulary is rather large, but most of the words have no meaning in English" - Joe Canuck "Too bad it wasn't "personality theft"...you'd be immune." - Herb Tarlek >> lol a measly 5.4L Ford engine (probably out of a lawnboy mower) even >> with a blower will be a dog compared to a Hemi Challenger with the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > an incorrect assumption, especially if the 6 litre is as disappointing > as the the 5 litre hemi. So WF, tell us how either of the current Hemi engines are "disappointing". BTW, if you're simply rounding up the 4.7 Hemi to 5 liters and rounding down the 6.1 to 6, why not just round down the Ford 5.4 to 5 liters as well? Or why not call the Mustang 4.6 a "5 liter"? You mean rounding down the 5.7L. The Chrysler 4.7L OHC isn't labelled as a Hemi. > BTW, if you're simply rounding up the 4.7 Hemi to 5 liters and rounding > down the 6.1 to 6, why not just round down the Ford 5.4 to 5 liters as > well? Or why not call the Mustang 4.6 a "5 liter"? > lol a measly 5.4L Ford engine (probably out of a lawnboy mower) Oh, you're just being a slanderous bastard. > even with a > blower will be a dog compared to a Hemi Challenger with the new 6.1L Hemi > Challenger I like the new Hemi. But I don't see how you've come to this conclusion. The 6.1 SRTs only run about 108 in the 1/4. The GT500s run an easy 110. (And do we want to add the GT500KRs and KR Super Snakes?) Or are you betting because the Challenger is going to be a 2- door that it'll be lighter. I say don't bet on it. I think we'll be lucky if it's south of 3,900. > and besides Ford can only build about 30 of the GT500 Shelbys a > year. You're just a little bit off. Total production for the 2007 GT500's came to 10,844 units with 8,150 of those being coupes and 2,694 being convertibles. If only you would have added 2 more zeros and then about 7,000 to your number, you would have been right there. > Dodge will eat them for lunch in sales. How many guys/gals do you know > that are willing to buy a GT500 for 22K dealer markup over the 47K sticker? And you think you're going to get a Challenger for anything close to sticker the first year? Rrrrrriiiiiggggghhhhttttttt....lol > Mustang is all decoration. It is, if you first remove the 500 HP motor. > Dodge will rule again with the Hemi. Dodge will be lucky if it's still alive in 5 years. (And Ford is hardly in any better shape.) I say we should be extremely happy they're even making the Challenger and GT500/Mustang. > Well at least > There will be lots of mustangs on Dodge used car lots in 2008. Considering the Mustang hasn't missed a model year since '64, I'll stay in the Champ's corner. What's our Challenger's history, again? Patrick <snip> > You're just a little bit off. Total production for the 2007 GT500's > came to 10,844 units with 8,150 of those being coupes and 2,694 being > convertibles. <snip> No kidding? That surprises the hell out of me. It's absolutely amazing that dealers are able to ask (and receive) so much "blue sky" on these cars, with those numbers. It must be the "Shelby" emblem bringing in all the folks that P.T. Barnum told us about. :) /raising glass/ Here's to the possibility that '08 will have as many produced. John C. (MSRP...or bust) '03 Cobra (improved) > <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > told us > about. :) NO it's 500 factory horsepower for $43,000 MSRP! I could care less if Shelby or SVT is involved or not. > /raising glass/ Here's to the possibility that '08 will have as many > produced. > > John C. (MSRP...or bust) > '03 Cobra (improved) > > <snip> > >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > NO it's 500 factory horsepower for $43,000 MSRP! I could care less if > Shelby or SVT is involved or not. That's all well and good, my comment was in regard to the people paying significantly _more_ than MSRP. At MSRP it's a good deal and a great starting point for a *really* strong runner. -- John C. '03 Cobra (improved) >> lol a measly 5.4L Ford engine (probably out of a lawnboy mower) > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > door that it'll be lighter. I say don't bet on it. I think we'll be > lucky if it's south of 3,900. IMHO the 5 litre hemi is over rated, under powered and drinks gas like a dragster. I think that if they had used newer technology with OHC and such. Yes it has 40% more power than the Magnum in my Ram did, but gets worse mileage. A two door Dodge Ram Rumble Bee with the 345 HP hemi has loses by at least 2/3 of the length of my Titan against it's four doors and supposedly 305 HP and I get better mileage. Now I looked a some of the differences between the 5 and 6 litre hemis and without knowing it's real world mileage I'll say it's far more satisfying. However, at least one difference is something that *we* would do after market and replaces the cast manifolds with stainless tube headers. Also it's still OHV. Signature"Wow, I want a billion Dollars and a pet monkey!" - Dale Jarrett "Paul's vocabulary is rather large, but most of the words have no meaning in English" - Joe Canuck "Too bad it wasn't "personality theft"...you'd be immune." - Herb Tarlek >>> lol a measly 5.4L Ford engine (probably out of a lawnboy mower) >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > would do after market and replaces the cast manifolds with stainless > tube headers. Also it's still OHV. You and your Titan are full of crap. Post some proof, butthead. >>> lol a measly 5.4L Ford engine (probably out of a lawnboy mower) >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >market and replaces the cast manifolds with stainless tube headers. Also >it's still OHV. Absolutely nothing wrong with an OHV engine. OHC is no panacea and involves more complex cam drives. OHC only comes into it's own with high RPM operation. A cam in block V engine wirh pushrods and either gear or chain camdrive is more durable than any cam-in-head design by virtue of the chain/belt length and associated wear issues. Hemi head complicates the push-rod/rocker situation a bit, raising the involved reciprocating mass, which limits high rpm performance. Same thing is true of 4 valve technology. Low RPM operation gains nothing from 4 valve tech unless you also have variable induction (shut down half of the intake at low RPM) to improve intake velocity at low speeds. The 4 cam setup on the Ford Duratec 6 is a potent arrangement above 5000 RPM without suffering from low intake velocity and poor cyl fill at low RPM because of the variable tuned intake. But what a MISERABLE peice of equipment to work on - and the 2.5 not only performs like a 3.8, but drinks like one too. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>>> lol a measly 5.4L Ford engine (probably out of a lawnboy mower) >>> Oh, you're just being a slanderous bastard. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >> market and replaces the cast manifolds with stainless tube headers. Also >> it's still OHV. > Absolutely nothing wrong with an OHV engine. OHC is no panacea and > involves more complex cam drives. OHC only comes into it's own with > high RPM operation. A cam in block V engine wirh pushrods and either > gear or chain camdrive is more durable than any cam-in-head design by > virtue of the chain/belt length and associated wear issues. I don't buy it. If there were such a difference Ford, Toyota and Nissan wouldn't have made the change. That may have been true in the past, but I think they are on equal footing now. As for "only in high RPM operation," that's no longer true either if you look at the torque ratings on the 5 litre truck engines by Ford, Nissan and Toyota. Signature"Wow, I want a billion Dollars and a pet monkey!" - Dale Jarrett "Paul's vocabulary is rather large, but most of the words have no meaning in English" - Joe Canuck "Too bad it wasn't "personality theft"...you'd be immune." - Herb Tarlek >>>>> lol a measly 5.4L Ford engine (probably out of a lawnboy mower) >>>> Oh, you're just being a slanderous bastard. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >RPM operation," that's no longer true either if you look at the torque >ratings on the 5 litre truck engines by Ford, Nissan and Toyota. And they could not attain those outputs with a cam-in-block engine? Or with 2 valve combustion chambers? Also depends what you call high RPM. ANything over about 3000 RPM (when cruising RPM is 2200-2500) At 5000 RPM 4 valves are an advantafe. At 5500 OHC is gaining the advantage. Either way, the reliability of the cam-in-block engine like the old SBC Chevy and the 260-289-302-351 Ford has not been eclipsed by the OHC engines. Not talking fuel, ignition, etc, but particularly cam-drive components. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>>>> lol a measly 5.4L Ford engine (probably out of a lawnboy mower) >>>> Oh, you're just being a slanderous bastard. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > RPM operation," that's no longer true either if you look at the torque > ratings on the 5 litre truck engines by Ford, Nissan and Toyota. There are a couple of reasons most engines have gone the OHC route. The first one is reliability which reduces warranty repairs and gives the buyer better longevity. The second is to maintain performance while improving fuel economy. The current V-8 in the Mustang is a prime example. The OHC layout allows for variable valve timing (VVT) which improves engine performance across the entire rpm range, especially torque numbers. In todays world I don't really understand why any auto company would produce a new pushrod engine. Sure they can deliver performance with them but it is impossible to apply some of the current technology to them such as VVT. Another good comparison, IMO, is the old 302 engine to the OHC 4.6L engine. The 4.6L is an order of magnitude better than the 302. Ford couldn't come close to the economy levels of the current 300 hp 4.6L engine. Especially considering the 4.6L with VVT can put out another 30-40 hp with a few tuning tweaks that don't effect its economy during normal driving. That level of performance with a 302 is possible but economy flies out the window. > There are a couple of reasons most engines have gone the OHC route. The > first one is reliability which reduces warranty repairs and gives the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > improves engine performance across the entire rpm range, especially > torque numbers. Mike, OHV (pushrod) engines engines can utilize VVT too. Check out the new Viper mill. > In todays world I don't really understand why any auto > company would produce a new pushrod engine. Cheaper to build and easier to package. OHV is too tall/wide. > Sure they can deliver > performance with them but it is impossible to apply some of the current > technology to them such as VVT. Again, no it isn't. > Another good comparison, IMO, is the old 302 engine to the OHC 4.6L > engine. The 4.6L is an order of magnitude better than the 302. Ford > couldn't come close to the economy levels of the current 300 hp 4.6L > engine. That's a really, really bad comparison. A motor designed in the 60's vs a motor designed in the 90s. Instead try the ZO6 mill vs the 4.6. > Especially considering the 4.6L with VVT can put out another > 30-40 hp with a few tuning tweaks that don't effect its economy during > normal driving. That level of performance with a 302 is possible but > economy flies out the window. That's not even a fair fight. That's like tossing a 50+ year old ex- boxing champ in with a 25-30 year old champion. Patrick Patrick, my reply to Joe pretty much covers your post too. BTW, a 4.6L in a Mustang with a $300 custom tune will match a Z06's hp/liter output. The most impressive component of the Viper and Z06 engines is their displacement. Take that away and they really aren't that impressive, IMO. A 4.6L '03 or '04 Cobra motor will bitch slap the Viper and Z06 engines with the installation of a twin screw blower and you don't even have to remove the valve covers to do it. ;) >> There are a couple of reasons most engines have gone the OHC route. The >> first one is reliability which reduces warranty repairs and gives the [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Patrick Patrick, apologies as I didn't see your post before I wrote mine. Michael, I really don't think it's fair to compare custom tuned OHCs to stock OHV motors. If you're going to do comparisons, why not keep things on a level playing field? Either go with everything stock, or apply the same customization (relatively speaking) to each engine. > Patrick, my reply to Joe pretty much covers your post too. BTW, a > 4.6L in a Mustang with a $300 custom tune will match a Z06's hp/liter [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] >> >> Patrick > Patrick, apologies as I didn't see your post before I wrote mine. > > Michael, I really don't think it's fair to compare custom tuned OHCs to > stock OHV motors. If you're going to do comparisons, why not keep > things on a level playing field? Either go with everything stock, or > apply the same customization (relatively speaking) to each engine. I can't say for sure but I would wager that the Z06 and Viper engines are tuned pretty aggressively from the factory. I also believe Ford chokes back the Mustang engines to meet a certain target and after the Cobra hp fiasco go out of their way to make sure they provide slightly more hp than advertised. Even comparing stock to stock the hp/liter numbers between them are very close. My point is that Ford's OHC "truck engine" is at least a match (hp/liter wise) to Chrysler's and GM's flagship OHV engines. I chalk much of this up to the OHC design of the modular motor. It allows Ford to produce and extremely reliable, durable and economical engine that also can be scaled to produce some very respectable hp/liter numbers. I am curious to see what the upcoming Boss and/or Bullet engines produce. If the 400 hp figures from 4.6-5.0L is true then they are going to match the base Corvette numbers with over a liter less engine displacement. Why can they do that with the OHC modular motor? I think it is because of the inherent efficiencies/advantages in the OHC design to no small degree. >> Patrick, my reply to Joe pretty much covers your post too. BTW, a >> 4.6L in a Mustang with a $300 custom tune will match a Z06's hp/liter [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >>> That's not even a fair fight. That's like tossing a 50+ year old ex- >>> boxing champ in with a 25-30 year old champion. >> Patrick, apologies as I didn't see your post before I wrote mine. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Cobra hp fiasco go out of their way to make sure they provide slightly > more hp than advertised. Discussing which makers underrate and overrate will always be suspect unless we take said vehicles out to the dyno. > Even comparing stock to stock the hp/liter > numbers between them are very close. See below. > My point is that Ford's OHC "truck > engine" is at least a match (hp/liter wise) to Chrysler's and GM's > flagship OHV engines. Take a look at the Ford 5.4, Chevy 5.3 and 6.0 Vortecs, and the Dodge 5.7. I don't see the Ford as a clear winner at all. At best it's in the ballpark, considering it's a 3V motor. > I chalk much of this up to the OHC design of the > modular motor. Take a look at the '08 Dodge 4.7 SOHC numbers below. Not too shabby. And it's only 2V. ;) > It allows Ford to produce and extremely reliable, > durable and economical engine that also can be scaled to produce some > very respectable hp/liter numbers. Just like GM and Chrysler have done with their OHV motors. > I am curious to see what the > upcoming Boss and/or Bullet engines produce. If the 400 hp figures from > 4.6-5.0L is true then they are going to match the base Corvette numbers > with over a liter less engine displacement. I doubt they'll be able to hit that mark, but we will see. I still say Ford talks a lot more than they do... > Why can they do that with > the OHC modular motor? I think it is because of the inherent > efficiencies/advantages in the OHC design to no small degree. It still remains to be seen. Reality shows us that the OHC is not that much better (if at all) than the OHV. OK, here are some specs taken from each maker's web site: Ford 4.6L SOHC 3V HP - 300 @ 5750 TQ - 320 @ 4500 Ford 5.4L SOHC 3V HP - 300 @ 5000 rpm TQ - 365 @ 3750 rpm Dodge 4.7L SOHC (2008) HP - 302 @ 5650 rpm TQ - 329 @ 3950 rpm Dodge 5.7L OHV HP - 335 @ 5000 rpm TQ - 375 @ 4000 rpm Dodge 6.1L OHV HP - 425 @ 6000 rpm TQ - 420 @ 4800 rpm Chevy 4.8L Vortec OHV HP - 295 @ 5600 rpm TQ - 305 @ 4800 rpm Chevy 5.3L Vortec OHV HP - 315 @ 5200 rpm TQ - 338 @ 4400 rpm Chevy 6.0L Vortec MAX OHV HP - 367 @ 5500 rpm TQ - 375 @ 4300 rpm Chevy 6.0L LS2 OHV HP - 400 @ 6000 rpm TQ - 400 @ 4400 rpm Chevy 7.0L LS7 OHV HP - 505 @ 6300 rpm TQ - 470 @ 4800 rpm Interesting numbers, to say the least. If anything pops out, it's that Ford doesn't have a n/a motor over 300hp. ;) > OK, here are some specs taken from each maker's web site: > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > Interesting numbers, to say the least. If anything pops out, it's that > Ford doesn't have a n/a motor over 300hp. ;) Ford 6.8L SOHC 3V(2005 & up) HP - 362 @ 4750 RPM TQ - 457 @ 3250 RPM Rob >> OK, here are some specs taken from each maker's web site: >> [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > Rob That's a V10. I should've specified V8s... >>> OK, here are some specs taken from each maker's web site: >>> [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > That's a V10. I should've specified V8s... Why? Why not specify over head cam while you are at it? Then you could say Chevy and Chrysler don't have a naturally aspirated OHC engine that makes over 250 horsepower... Hum this is getting silly.. BTW: The Ford 6.8 naturally aspirated OHC engine is a truck engine, and makes comparable power to the other's OHV performance car engines... >>>> OK, here are some specs taken from each maker's web site: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] >The Ford 6.8 naturally aspirated OHC engine is a truck engine, and makes >comparable power to the other's OHV performance car engines... So, Chrysler's 413 was a truck engine. So was Ford's 460, and GM's 396 and 427.(and the venerable 409 too) Didn't make them any less of a good car engine SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>>>> OK, here are some specs taken from each maker's web site: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > and 427.(and the venerable 409 too) > Didn't make them any less of a good car engine Fords 460 was a Lincoln car engine long before it was a truck engine... >>>>>> OK, here are some specs taken from each maker's web site: >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > > Fords 460 was a Lincoln car engine long before it was a truck engine... AND the 413 was a car engine long before it was a truck engine... Rob >AND the 413 was a car engine long before it was a truck engine... > >Rob The 413 hit the cars in '59 I know the 1960 LCF had the 413 as the "standard" engine, so "long before" is only 12 months max. I think the C series (LCF) truck came out aboutJune or July 1959 - making "long before" closer to 10 months SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>>>>>> OK, here are some specs taken from each maker's web site: >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > > Rob I know a guy with a 413 Max Wedge on a stand. Signature"Wow, I want a billion Dollars and a pet monkey!" - Dale Jarrett "Paul's vocabulary is rather large, but most of the words have no meaning in English" - Joe Canuck "Too bad it wasn't "personality theft"...you'd be immune." - Herb Tarlek Was the 1967 Lincoln 462 the same engine as the 460? The 460 stroke was shorter and the bore was larger (marginally) Was the 462 a bored and stroked 430? >Fords 460 was a Lincoln car engine long before it was a truck engine... SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>> Patrick, apologies as I didn't see your post before I wrote mine. >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Discussing which makers underrate and overrate will always be suspect > unless we take said vehicles out to the dyno. I don't think anyone today is over stating hp numbers. If anything they are slightly under rating them. For Chevy to squeeze another 100 hp from their OHV Vette motor they had to increase the displacement. That tells me they are close to maxing out the engine while keeping emissions viable and reliable. Otherwise they would keep the displacement at 6 liters for the Z06. >> Even comparing stock to stock the hp/liter >> numbers between them are very close. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I don't see the Ford as a clear winner at all. At best it's in the > ballpark, considering it's a 3V motor. Ford isn't producing a high performance N/A 5.4L engine at the moment. They did several years ago and put it into the Cobra R. It made an under rated 385 hp and in reality probably made close to 400 hp with 5.4 liters of displacement. Ford produced this engine seven years ago and Chevy needs 6 liters to hit 400 hp with their base Vette engine. The current GT500 (and Ford GT) engine is basically a Cobra R engine with a blower and stronger internals. The Mustang's 4.6L is Ford's only N/A high performance engine at the moment. The after market tuners are getting another 30-40 hp from them with tuning tweaks and these cars still pass all the emissions tests. Ford could do the same from the factory but don't need to because the car has no immediate competition. Getting 340 hp from 4.6 liters is better hp/liter numbers than the Z06 of Viper engines. Ford could easily give the 4.6L another 1000 rpm up top and push it to 400 hp, IMO. Heck, nearly 17-18 years ago Ford was offering an OHC SHO engine in the Taurus that made better hp/liter numbers than today's Z06 or Viper OHV engines. >> I chalk much of this up to the OHC design of the >> modular motor. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Just like GM and Chrysler have done with their OHV motors. I never said OHV engines aren't reliable. ;) >> I am curious to see what the >> upcoming Boss and/or Bullet engines produce. If the 400 hp figures from [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I doubt they'll be able to hit that mark, but we will see. I still say > Ford talks a lot more than they do... With 5.0L displacement they can do it easily. With 4.6L displacement it will take some new design features like maybe four valves per cylinder and a 7,000+ redline. >> Why can they do that with >> the OHC modular motor? I think it is because of the inherent [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > Interesting numbers, to say the least. If anything pops out, it's that > Ford doesn't have a n/a motor over 300hp. ;) The only reason Ford doesn't have one is because they refuse to build it and/or have no use for it at present. They produced a 385-400 hp 5.4L N/A OHC engine for the Cobra R so we know what they can do it even with seven year old engine technology. Remember the ZR1 Corvette? It had a DOHC 350 ci V-8 that made 405 hp from 5.7 liters back in the early 1990s. The OHV engine is just catching it in power production. Think what hp levels they would see if they put all that R&D into the ZR1 engine. Chevy should have kept the ZR1 and ditched the OHV engines. That engine, IMO, should have evolved into the base engine for the Corvette. >The Mustang's 4.6L is Ford's only N/A high performance engine at the >moment. The after market tuners are getting another 30-40 hp from them [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >the Taurus that made better hp/liter numbers than today's Z06 or Viper >OHV engines. It wasn't a Ford engine, though. It was a Yamaha. And the Duratec V6 isn't a "Ford" engine either. Yes, they build it, but the block is a Porsche design, and the heads are Cosworth. ANd it is a royal pain to work on, and DOES require more work than lower output pushrod engines. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> The Mustang's 4.6L is Ford's only N/A high performance engine at the >> moment. The after market tuners are getting another 30-40 hp from them [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > is a royal pain to work on, and DOES require more work than lower > output pushrod engines. I know the SHO V-6 is a Yamaha engine but we are really comparing OHC to OHV for discussion purposes of hp/liter output and basic design superiority. BTW, removing a cam from an OHV engine isn't a piece of cake either as is the lifters. Been there and done that. I do think OHC engines have more packaging issues than OHV due to their increased size. >>> The Mustang's 4.6L is Ford's only N/A high performance engine at the >>> moment. The after market tuners are getting another 30-40 hp from them [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >cake either as is the lifters. Been there and done that. I do think >OHC engines have more packaging issues than OHV due to their increased size. Just because an engine is OHC doesn't make it easier to remove the cam. Anyone who's replaced the cam on a BMW 2002 Tii will vouch for that. I have changed the cam in a Chevy V8 in under 3 hours with no power tools. In a Chevy 230 six in less than 2 hours. The 2002 took over 4. Also, when the cam goes in the AVERAGE OHC engine, the head can be junk as there are generally no cam bearings. MANY OHC engines are basically throw-away when they go bad as they are not feasible to rebuild. MOST OHV (cam in block) engines are very rebuildable. (and economically, too) That said, Ford really screwed up with the 3.8!!! SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>>> The Mustang's 4.6L is Ford's only N/A high performance engine at the >>>> moment. The after market tuners are getting another 30-40 hp from them [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > power tools. In a Chevy 230 six in less than 2 hours. > The 2002 took over 4. Pulling a cam from a transverse mounted OHV engine usually means pulling the engine. In a longitudinal mount it usually means removing the radiator at a minimum, or worse. Depends on the car. > Also, when the cam goes in the AVERAGE OHC engine, the head can be > junk as there are generally no cam bearings. MANY OHC engines are > basically throw-away when they go bad as they are not feasible to > rebuild. MOST OHV (cam in block) engines are very rebuildable. (and > economically, too) In today's world most new cars are throw aways no matter what engine they have. It doesn't make sense to put $4,000+ worth of repairs into a car that is worth maybe $2,000. One thing I will say about today's cars is they are much more durable, on average. Getting 100,000 miles from a car 30-40 years ago was considered good. Now they are just getting broken in if they are maintained well. Plus, the maintenance regime is heaven nowadays compared to the good old days of condensers, points, short lived spark plugs etc. Remember when Ziebart treatment was necessary to keep vehicles from rusting apart by the time they reached 100,000 miles? > That said, Ford really screwed up with the 3.8!!! I wouldn't say they screwed up the engine design as much as they screwed up the head gasket specifications. >> That said, Ford really screwed up with the 3.8!!! > >I wouldn't say they screwed up the engine design as much as they screwed >up the head gasket specifications. And the bearing specs. Any bearing that cannot stand2% glycol in the oil is JUNK. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>The Mustang's 4.6L is Ford's only N/A high performance engine at the >>moment. The after market tuners are getting another 30-40 hp from them [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > It wasn't a Ford engine, though. It was a Yamaha. So is the so called "Hemi" built in Mexico actually a Chrysler engine? Is the Isuzu built diesel actually a Chevy Duramax engine? Is the International diesel actually a Ford Power Stroke engine? In this day and age that is a really silly distinction. Almost all cars have outsourced parts... The Ford SHO KICKED a.s, and was about 15-20 years ahead of it's time... > And the Duratec V6 isn't a "Ford" engine either. Yes, they build it, > but the block is a Porsche design, and the heads are Cosworth. ANd it > is a royal pain to work on, and DOES require more work than lower > output pushrod engines. >>> The Mustang's 4.6L is Ford's only N/A high performance engine at the >>> moment. The after market tuners are getting another 30-40 hp from them [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > have outsourced parts... > The Ford SHO KICKED a.s, and was about 15-20 years ahead of it's time... Only the top end of the SHO engine was engineered by Yamaha. Signature"Wow, I want a billion Dollars and a pet monkey!" - Dale Jarrett "Paul's vocabulary is rather large, but most of the words have no meaning in English" - Joe Canuck "Too bad it wasn't "personality theft"...you'd be immune." - Herb Tarlek >>>The Mustang's 4.6L is Ford's only N/A high performance engine at the >>>moment. The after market tuners are getting another 30-40 hp from them [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >So is the so called "Hemi" built in Mexico actually a Chrysler engine? Yes, designed and built by Chrysler in their own facility. Just happens to be in Mexico. However, it is NOT really a "HEMI". >Is the Isuzu built diesel actually a Chevy Duramax engine? Yes in as far as GM "OWNS" Isuzu >Is the International diesel actually a Ford Power Stroke engine? No, the Ford PowerStroke engine is an International engine. Built for Ford by International - a modified version of the International (Navistar) "S" Series. >In this day and age that is a really silly distinction. Almost all cars >have outsourced parts... Agreed - we are returning to the day of the "assembled" car rather than the manufactured car. The Model "T" Ford was actually manufactured, almost entirely, by the Dodge Brothers in it's early years - and "assembled" by Ford. Many "manufacturers" of cars and trucks up to the fifties used engines made by another company - continental was one. Lycoming (in earlier years) was another. Chrysler and Willy's engines were used by several "manufacturers". Even the bodys of many makes were "borrowed". IIRC Graham used modified Ford bodies. Much more common in trucks - and VERY prevalent today. Are Mack and International the only major (heavy) truck companies still building their own engines (other than the Japanese) in the American market? >The Ford SHO KICKED a.s, and was about 15-20 years ahead of it's time... At least. And it stood up quite well to the "abuse" many drivers handed it. >> And the Duratec V6 isn't a "Ford" engine either. Yes, they build it, >> but the block is a Porsche design, and the heads are Cosworth. ANd it >> is a royal pain to work on, and DOES require more work than lower >> output pushrod engines. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > > Patrick, apologies as I didn't see your post before I wrote mine. > > Michael, I really don't think it's fair to compare custom tuned OHCs to > > stock OHV motors. If you're going to do comparisons, why not keep > > things on a level playing field? Either go with everything stock, or > > apply the same customization (relatively speaking) to each engine. > I can't say for sure but I would wager that the Z06 and Viper engines > are tuned pretty aggressively from the factory. Not really. I was going to post about how many modified LS powered GM cars there are in my neck of the woods... errr beach. In fact I talked with one of the guys just this morning. He has an '02 Trans Am with Z06 heads, cam and exhaust. I don't know what else he's done, but there's no blower or juice and he's running low 11s at around 120. > I also believe Ford > chokes back the Mustang engines to meet a certain target and after the > Cobra hp fiasco go out of their way to make sure they provide slightly > more hp than advertised. GM has been under-rating since the LS1 came out. Even comparing stock to stock the hp/liter > numbers between them are very close. My point is that Ford's OHC "truck > engine" is at least a match (hp/liter wise) to Chrysler's and GM's > flagship OHV engines. Ford's "truck engine" [family] powered their flagship Ford GT. Chrysler's flagship engine also powered a pickup. The SRT-10. But, again, none of this matters because HP/liter doesn't matter. Patrick >>> Patrick, apologies as I didn't see your post before I wrote mine. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > but there's no blower or juice and he's running low 11s at around > 120. If there is more power left in the base Corvette engine then why did Chevy have to raise the displacement of the Z06 engine to 7 liters to get 505 hp? ;) >> I also believe Ford >> chokes back the Mustang engines to meet a certain target and after the >> Cobra hp fiasco go out of their way to make sure they provide slightly >> more hp than advertised. > > GM has been under-rating since the LS1 came out. I think most all manufacturers under rate there performance engines nowadays. None of them want to get caught shorting the buyer. > Even comparing stock to stock the hp/liter >> numbers between them are very close. My point is that Ford's OHC "truck [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > But, again, none of this matters because HP/liter doesn't matter. Maybe not for ETs or lap times but it does give an idea of an engine's hp efficiency and effectiveness of its design regard power production. > Patrick, my reply to Joe pretty much covers your post too. BTW, a 4.6L > in a Mustang with a $300 custom tune will match a Z06's hp/liter output. > The most impressive component of the Viper and Z06 engines is their > displacement. Take that away and they really aren't that impressive, So take away their strong point to make your point? How about remove the 4.6s OHVs and it's just a small displacement motor. > IMO. A 4.6L '03 or '04 Cobra motor will bitch slap the Viper and Z06 > engines with the installation of a twin screw blower and you don't even > have to remove the valve covers to do it. ;) Yes, a $4K upgrade can do wonderful things. Patrick >> Patrick, my reply to Joe pretty much covers your post too. BTW, a 4.6L >> in a Mustang with a $300 custom tune will match a Z06's hp/liter output. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So take away their strong point to make your point? How about remove > the 4.6s OHVs and it's just a small displacement motor. My point is the OHC engines have other ways of making hp than just increasing displacement. For instance improved airflow from a multi-valve head in conjunction with high rpm capability can produce very impressive hp numbers. Sure you can do the same with an OHV engine but low end power suffers and the cost of machining the engine to tight tolerances is cost prohibitive for a mass produced engine. GM and Chrysler have gone the displacement route to overcome the inherent weaknesses of the OHV design. The OHC engines don't have these weaknesses and this, IMO, make them a superior design. >> IMO. A 4.6L '03 or '04 Cobra motor will bitch slap the Viper and Z06 >> engines with the installation of a twin screw blower and you don't even >> have to remove the valve covers to do it. ;) > > Yes, a $4K upgrade can do wonderful things. It's not the $4k. It's the blower. I just love forced induction and don't know why it isn't used more often. There's absolutely nothing wrong with 150+ hp/liter engines. They are light, small and run like hell. >>>>>> lol a measly 5.4L Ford engine (probably out of a lawnboy mower) >>>>> Oh, you're just being a slanderous bastard. [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > can deliver performance with them but it is impossible to apply some > of the current technology to them such as VVT. First, you might want to talk to the folks who make the Corvette and the Viper. VVT is also available for pushrod engines. GM's doing it and I believe the Viper's got it as well. > Another good comparison, IMO, is the old 302 engine to the OHC 4.6L > engine. The 4.6L is an order of magnitude better than the 302. Ford [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > normal driving. That level of performance with a 302 is possible but > economy flies out the window. Comparing even the latest 302 to a current 4.6 is absurd given the difference in available technology. Try a comparison between the 4.6 and any current pushrod motor. You'll be hard pressed to see any clear advantage the 4.6 might have. >>>>>>> lol a measly 5.4L Ford engine (probably out of a lawnboy mower) >>>>>> Oh, you're just being a slanderous bastard. [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > Viper. VVT is also available for pushrod engines. GM's doing it and I > believe the Viper's got it as well. I stand corrected. Are there any OHV engines with multiple intake/exhaust valves? This is another big advantage of OHC engines as is reaching higher rpm rates with less precise machining and less moving mass in the valve train. >> Another good comparison, IMO, is the old 302 engine to the OHC 4.6L >> engine. The 4.6L is an order of magnitude better than the 302. Ford [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > and any current pushrod motor. You'll be hard pressed to see any clear > advantage the 4.6 might have. I don't think I'm hard pressed at all. The 4.6L with a modest after market tune can match the Viper's hp/liter number and in stock form slight exceeds the standard Vette's hp/liter numbers. Not too shabby for a what some call a truck engine. Remember the Cobra R with the four valve 5.4L engine? It matched the Viper's hp/liter numbers and that is using its advertised 385 hp number and not the real world dyno numbers that indicated they were somewhat higher. Considering the cost of each engine this is pretty respectable performance from the Ford camp. I chalk up much of the credit for the Ford's modular engine performance to their OHC design. IMO, the OHC design makes it easier to achieve high hp levels economically and with very high reliability. The OHV engines do make for a more compact design though and somewhat lighter weight. >>>>>>>> lol a measly 5.4L Ford engine (probably out of a lawnboy mower) >>>>>>> Oh, you're just being a slanderous bastard. [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] >hp levels economically and with very high reliability. The OHV engines >do make for a more compact design though and somewhat lighter weight. Ever put a twin screw on a Viper??????? Forced induction by it's very nature negates the requirements for variable/tuned intakes and pretty much makes VVT and multivalve technology redundant. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>>>>>>>> lol a measly 5.4L Ford engine (probably out of a lawnboy mower) >>>>>>>> Oh, you're just being a slanderous bastard. [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > variable/tuned intakes and pretty much makes VVT and multivalve > technology redundant. I didn't mention twin screws in my post to Joe but I'll bite anyway. I look at a twin screw blower like an amplifier of the N/A power curve. The better the curve before the blower the better it will be with it. In other words the VVT, multi-valve design etc. only makes the twin screw more effective. Try putting a twin screw making 9 lbs. of boost on a bone stock Viper and see what happens. The stock 4.6L will take that 9 lbs. of boost in stride and make 425-450 rwhp or over 500 hp at the crank. Try that same amount of boost on a stock Viper engine and odds are it will have a catastrophic failure due to its high compression ratio. >>>>>>>>>> lol a measly 5.4L Ford engine (probably out of a lawnboy mower) >>>>>>>>> Oh, you're just being a slanderous bastard. [quoted text clipped - 91 lines] >amount of boost on a stock Viper engine and odds are it will have a >catastrophic failure due to its high compression ratio. Apples to apples my boy. Only a FOOL would put a blower on a Viper or other high compression engine without dropping the native compression ratio. Put a huffer on a stock 4.6 and see how long it lasts!!!!! SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>>>>>>>>>> lol a measly 5.4L Ford engine (probably out of a lawnboy mower) >>>>>>>>>> Oh, you're just being a slanderous bastard. [quoted text clipped - 105 lines] > other high compression engine without dropping the native compression > ratio. Put a huffer on a stock 4.6 and see how long it lasts!!!!! Bingo, that is the point. The stock 4.6 is good for a ver reliable and long lived 450 horsepower on all stock internals, with no ill effects. That is 150 horsepower (+50%) increase, without changing anything in the bottom end or the heads. Ford sees a 50% horsepower increase on their OHC modular engines with a simple bolt on blower, on SOCK internals, while the Corvette and Viper push rod offerings are maxed out and need all new internals to up their horsepower numbers from the maxed out factory figures... Come on now clare, this is not rocket science... Go ahead and get your apples out and tell us just how this reflects well on the Viper or the Vet's "technology" advantages? >>>>>>>>>>>> lol a measly 5.4L Ford engine (probably out of a lawnboy mower) >>>>>>>>>>> Oh, you're just being a slanderous bastard. [quoted text clipped - 117 lines] > Go ahead and get your apples out and tell us just how this reflects well on > the Viper or the Vet's "technology" advantages? Thanks. You saved me a lot of typing. >> Bingo, that is the point. The stock 4.6 is good for a ver reliable and >> long lived 450 horsepower on all stock internals, with no ill effects. That [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Thanks. You saved me a lot of typing. The SRT10 viper and the normally aspirated 'stang both had 9.6:1 CR stock. In 2007 the standart viper had 9.2:1. In 2008 the SRT10 goes to 10.2:1 The 2008 SRT10 8.4 liter Viper puts out 600 HP normally aspirated for 74.5 HP per liter at 6250 RPM. It puts out 560 ft lb of torque, or almost 67 ft lbs per liter. If you boosted this engine to 7psi ((same as Stang) you would see almost 100 HP per liter, and torque in the 90 ft lb per liter range, with CR down around 8.5:1 The GT500 supercharged 5.7engine has 8.4:1 native compression ratio . It makes 500 hp at 6000 RPM. That's almost 88 HP per liter. It puts out 480 ft lbs on 150% of atmospheric pressure at the intake. That/s just over 84 ft lbs per liter. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>> Bingo, that is the point. The stock 4.6 is good for a ver reliable and >>> long lived 450 horsepower on all stock internals, with no ill effects. That [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > almost 100 HP per liter, and torque in the 90 ft lb per liter range, > with CR down around 8.5:1 Can the Viper engine take 7 psi of boost with no internal engine modifications? The Mustang's 4.6L can take 9 psi with no modifications. > The GT500 supercharged 5.7engine has 8.4:1 native compression ratio . > It makes 500 hp at 6000 RPM. That's almost 88 HP per liter. It puts > out 480 ft lbs on 150% of atmospheric pressure at the intake. > That/s just over 84 ft lbs per liter. The GT500's engine isn't even breaking a sweat at 500 hp. Ford slapped an inefficient Roots blower on it and detuned it. A Kenne Bell twin screw kit on a GT500 will make nearly 700 rwhp on pump gas. That equates to 150 hp/liter and you can fill up the tank at Sunoco. This is also done without removing the valve covers or oil pan from the engine. >>>> Bingo, that is the point. The stock 4.6 is good for a ver reliable and >>>> long lived 450 horsepower on all stock internals, with no ill effects. That [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >equates to 150 hp/liter and you can fill up the tank at Sunoco. This is >also done without removing the valve covers or oil pan from the engine. And NONE of this has anything to do with where the camshafts are located. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>>>> Bingo, that is the point. The stock 4.6 is good for a ver reliable and >>>>> long lived 450 horsepower on all stock internals, with no ill effects. That [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > And NONE of this has anything to do with where the camshafts are > located. Agreed. It's not uncommon for these type of threads to spin off on a tangent. Hell, this thread started out talking about the new Challenger and look where we are now. > Try putting a twin screw making 9 lbs. of boost on a bone stock Viper > and see what happens. The stock 4.6L will take that 9 lbs. of boost in > stride and make 425-450 rwhp or over 500 hp at the crank. Try that same > amount of boost on a stock Viper engine and odds are it will have a > catastrophic failure due to its high compression ratio. Much like many of the older [high-compression] 4.6 Cobras did after their owners added blowers. Again, your comparisons are not very good. Patrick >> Try putting a twin screw making 9 lbs. of boost on a bone stock Viper >> and see what happens. The stock 4.6L will take that 9 lbs. of boost in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Again, your comparisons are not very good. I wasn't talking about the N/A Cobra engines. My comparisons are between today's Viper and Mustang engines. Ford builds more headroom into their modular V-8s. Can a Viper engine handle a 50-60% increase in power output without removing the valve covers or oil pan? I know the Mustang's OHC engine can. >>> Try putting a twin screw making 9 lbs. of boost on a bone stock Viper >>> and see what happens. The stock 4.6L will take that 9 lbs. of boost in [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >power output without removing the valve covers or oil pan? I know the >Mustang's OHC engine can. The "blower" mustang starts with lower CR out of the box than the non blower engine. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>>> Try putting a twin screw making 9 lbs. of boost on a bone stock Viper >>>> and see what happens. The stock 4.6L will take that 9 lbs. of boost in [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > The "blower" mustang starts with lower CR out of the box than the non > blower engine. I'm not even talking about the blown 4.6L from the factory. The Mustang GT engine can take 9 psi with little risk if the tune is right. Where the Viper and Z06 engines are pushed closer to their limits from the factory the 4.6L engine in the Mustang is not and it still makes hp/liter numbers on par with the other two engines. If Ford pushed the 4.6L as far as the Viper and Z06 they would pass those motors in hp/liter output, IMO. I know the after market tuners are getting 30-40 more rwhp from them with tuning alone while maintaining reliability and meeting emissions requirements. Imagine what Ford could do with tuning the 4.6L in the Mustang if they had the motivation. The whole point of the discussion here is that, IMO, OHC engines have inherent design advantages over OHV engines. The fact that Ford's OHC 4.6L in the Mustang is matching the Viper and Z06 hp/liter numbers and still has enough headroom to handle 9 psi of boost shows the superiority of the OHC design, IMO. Ford could easily place four valve heads with VVT and raise the redline to 7,500 rpm (the OHC design makes high redlines easier to achieve) and get 400+ hp from their 4.6L engine. This would be more hp than the LS2 using 1.4 liters less engine displacement. >>>>> Try putting a twin screw making 9 lbs. of boost on a bone stock >>>>> Viper and see what happens. The stock 4.6L will take that 9 lbs. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > limits from the factory the 4.6L engine in the Mustang is not and it > still makes hp/liter numbers on par with the other two engines. You can also read this as Chevy and Dodge engineering their motors to be ready to roll right off the showroom floor, whereas Ford is leaving it up to the customer to spend aftermarket dollars to bring the engine up to par. > If > Ford pushed the 4.6L as far as the Viper and Z06 they would pass those > motors in hp/liter output, IMO. I know you've already claimed that Ford doesn't have to, but have we heard of _any_ development to do so, especially in light of what's coming down the line? We've heard that the new Corvette motor is a given, but what's up with the Boss/Hurricane? Rumors abound... > I know the after market tuners are > getting 30-40 more rwhp from them with tuning alone while maintaining > reliability and meeting emissions requirements. Imagine what Ford > could do with tuning the 4.6L in the Mustang if they had the > motivation. That's the problem. We have to imagine. > The whole point of the discussion here is that, IMO, OHC engines have > inherent design advantages over OHV engines. I might say that the whole point is to discuss the advantages/disadvantages. I don't think it's a given that OHC motors have it over OHVs. > The fact that Ford's OHC > 4.6L in the Mustang is matching the Viper and Z06 hp/liter numbers and > still has enough headroom to handle 9 psi of boost shows the > superiority of the OHC design, IMO. Sorry, Michael, but I can't buy it. I see it as the 4.6 being "under- engineered". > Ford could easily place four > valve heads with VVT and raise the redline to 7,500 rpm (the OHC > design makes high redlines easier to achieve) and get 400+ hp from > their 4.6L engine. This would be more hp than the LS2 using 1.4 liters > less engine displacement. You can say similar things for every maker. Every engine being made today could benefit from more research, engineering, and testing. However, doing so would perpetuate the discussion forever, as it's all conjecture. Let's talk about what you can buy right out of the showroom and drive home. ;) >>>>>> Try putting a twin screw making 9 lbs. of boost on a bone stock >>>>>> Viper and see what happens. The stock 4.6L will take that 9 lbs. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > coming down the line? We've heard that the new Corvette motor is a > given, but what's up with the Boss/Hurricane? Rumors abound... I read something about the Bullet engine the other day but it was mostly guessing. I would imagine that any Mustang variant between the GT500 and GT with have to be N/A or it will cut into GT500 sales. My guess is the Bullet will be a beter tuned GT engine that cranks out around 340 hp. I think Ford looks at the Boss label as a premium one and will do something special for the engine like giving it a high redline, four valves and/or raising the displacement to five liters. I think it will also be priced accordingly (aka too high). Then again, I could be full of sh.t too. >> I know the after market tuners are >> getting 30-40 more rwhp from them with tuning alone while maintaining [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > That's the problem. We have to imagine. Ford has no competition against the Mustang so they really don't have to do squat. Funny thing is that without competition they are offering us a very good car. IMO, they are giving us the best lineup of Mustangs ever. I include the 1960s Mustangs in that statement. >> The whole point of the discussion here is that, IMO, OHC engines have >> inherent design advantages over OHV engines. > > I might say that the whole point is to discuss the > advantages/disadvantages. I don't think it's a given that OHC motors > have it over OHVs. I don't think OHC engines are an order of magnitude better. IMO, they allow more tools at the engineer's disposal to make power reliably and with less manufacturing cost. The OHC engines offer multi-valve heads, VVT, multiple intake runners and very high rpm capability to name a few. They can be designed to match an OHV engine and then some. Just look at the newer OHV engines, they are taking design elements (like VVT) that have existed in OHC engines for almost a decade or more. The other thing that I think is going to ultimately make OHV engines hit a wall is displacement. From what I see in the Vette and Viper they have to have cubic inches to get the power levels those cars need. How far can they go with this design philosophy? Even in the hay days of the 1960s there were displacement limits. The Z06 is at 427 cubic inches already with and engine that is stroked to the moon and back. Basically, an engine is an air pump. The more air you move the more power you make. The OHC design allows more flexibility to move the air more efficiently. Not and order of magnitude more efficiently but a measurable amount. >> The fact that Ford's OHC >> 4.6L in the Mustang is matching the Viper and Z06 hp/liter numbers and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Sorry, Michael, but I can't buy it. I see it as the 4.6 being "under- > engineered". What you call "under engineered" I call untapped potential for making more power (i.e. headroom). I think Ford intentionally does this to give the Mustang buyer the ability to tweak his car to get more performance for cheap. I think Ford chiseled this in the Mustang's list of commandments when they conceived it back in the 1960s. >> Ford could easily place four >> valve heads with VVT and raise the redline to 7,500 rpm (the OHC [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > conjecture. Let's talk about what you can buy right out of the showroom > and drive home. ;) Well then we have to through the engine in the GT500 into the mix. That starts a whole different discussion between forced induction and N/A. IMO, that is a short argument because forced induction is the clear winner in any hp/liter discussion. >>>>>>> Try putting a twin screw making 9 lbs. of boost on a bone stock >>>>>>> Viper and see what happens. The stock 4.6L will take that 9 [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > I think it will also be priced accordingly (aka too high). Then > again, I could be full of sh.t too. Hey, most of us are (some more than others though). At any rate, if Ford does come out with Bullet/Boss/Hurricane engines, what the hell will they put them in?? The Mustang can't go much higher in price, which would be a must for those engines. >>> I know the after market tuners are >>> getting 30-40 more rwhp from them with tuning alone while [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Ford has no competition against the Mustang so they really don't have > to do squat. Not yet, at least. But that's all part of what we're talking about here. > Funny thing is that without competition they are > offering us a very good car. IMO, they are giving us the best lineup > of Mustangs ever. I include the 1960s Mustangs in that statement. Absolutely! I think the Mustang is one of the best deals out there now, even with "only" 300hp. ;) >>> The whole point of the discussion here is that, IMO, OHC engines >>> have inherent design advantages over OHV engines. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > at the newer OHV engines, they are taking design elements (like VVT) > that have existed in OHC engines for almost a decade or more. Totally agreed. Like Patrick used to say (poorly paraphrased), it's a great time to have a driver's license. ;) > The other thing that I think is going to ultimately make OHV engines > hit a wall is displacement. From what I see in the Vette and Viper [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 427 cubic inches already with and engine that is stroked to the moon > and back. They'll either go to V10s or big blocks. LOL! > Basically, an engine is an air pump. The more air you move the more > power you make. The OHC design allows more flexibility to move the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > What you call "under engineered" I call untapped potential for making > more power (i.e. headroom). I was sort of being facetiou |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message