 |
 | 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 facetious, but at least I was able to make my point. ;) > 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. Great thought, but I don't think Ford goes that far. I think they figure out how to make money and that's about it. >>> Ford could easily place four >>> valve heads with VVT and raise the redline to 7,500 rpm (the OHC [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > N/A. IMO, that is a short argument because forced induction is the > clear winner in any hp/liter discussion. OK, sounds good to me. :) For the life of me, I can't figure out why they stopped making the Lightning... >>>> The fact that Ford's OHC >>>> 4.6L in the Mustang is matching the Viper and Z06 hp/liter numbers [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> performance for cheap. I think Ford chiseled this in the Mustang's >> list of commandments when they conceived it back in the 1960s. Here in lies the key to the Mustangs phenomenal success, the largest most successful "after market parts" industry ever for any car period. >>>>> The fact that Ford's OHC >>>>> 4.6L in the Mustang is matching the Viper and Z06 hp/liter numbers [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Here in lies the key to the Mustangs phenomenal success, the largest > most successful "after market parts" industry ever for any car period. If you take all the years it's been out collectively, that's a given. However, if you go a year at a time, my money would probably be on Honda aftermarket parts. I see a helluva a lot more ricers with aftermarket stuff than Mustangs. >>>>> The fact that Ford's OHC >>>>> 4.6L in the Mustang is matching the Viper and Z06 hp/liter numbers [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >Here in lies the key to the Mustangs phenomenal success, the largest most >successful "after market parts" industry ever for any car period. You can build a 1966 Mustang totally from parts for significantly less than you can restore a "decent" Cuda , Challenger, Charger, or virtually any other Mopar of the period. And Chevy falls in between somewhere. A Camero or Chevelle is easier / cheaper to rebuild than a Mopar because there are more parts available, at a significantly lower cost. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>><snip> >>> I know you've already claimed that Ford doesn't have to, but have we [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > will they put them in?? The Mustang can't go much higher in price, > which would be a must for those engines. Right now I think Ford is in survival mode and I doubt we will see those engines any time soon. Ford doesn't lack good engines now and, IMO, doesn't need the added financial burden of delivering them. Besides, you make a good point, They have nothing to put them in at the moment. >>>> I know the after market tuners are >>>> getting 30-40 more rwhp from them with tuning alone while [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Not yet, at least. But that's all part of what we're talking about > here. I still doubt the Camaro and Challenger will see the light of day. I just don't think the bean counters are going to let them happen. Not enough profit in them to matter in the company wide bottom line. Bean counters don't care about image cars. >> 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. ;) I also give Ford tremendous credit for producing the Cobra from 2003 on up. Those cars are no-holds-barred a.s kickers. They are made in the true spirit of the muscle/pony cars back at peak of the 1960s. No other car maker has had the balls to deliver those kind of vehicles in recent times. >>>> The whole point of the discussion here is that, IMO, OHC engines >>>> have inherent design advantages over OHV engines. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Totally agreed. Like Patrick used to say (poorly paraphrased), it's a > great time to have a driver's license. ;) Amen, brother! >> 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 - 5 lines] > > They'll either go to V10s or big blocks. LOL! Actually, I think they will go the OHC route first. Did you hear that Chevy is bringing the ZR1 back? Wanna bet it has an OHC engine? ;) >> 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 - 20 lines] > Great thought, but I don't think Ford goes that far. I think they > figure out how to make money and that's about it. IMO, the other reason they do this is to allow them to be beat on by their drivers and still keep running past the warranty period. >>>> Ford could easily place four >>>> valve heads with VVT and raise the redline to 7,500 rpm (the OHC [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > For the life of me, I can't figure out why they stopped making the > Lightning... My guess is they didn't want to spend the money to R&D, and tool up, for the new truck chassis. The bean counters probably said the cost wasn't worth the profits. It looks like they killed the full time AWD, supercharged Sport Trac too. That looked to be one beast of a vehicle in the spirit of the old GM Typhoon and Cyclone. >>>><snip> >>>> I know you've already claimed that Ford doesn't have to, but have [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Besides, you make a good point, They have nothing to put them in at > the moment. So except for the Mustang (with a few engine variations), are you saying that Ford is out of the performance picture for the time being? >>>>> I know the after market tuners are >>>>> getting 30-40 more rwhp from them with tuning alone while [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > enough profit in them to matter in the company wide bottom line. Bean > counters don't care about image cars. I think there's been enough publicity for those cars that if those makers _don't_ put them out, people will be really pissed off and you'll see a bad ripple effect. I also think the bean counters realize that. Dodge still has the Challenger on its web sites as "coming soon". If Dodge makes the Challenger and Chevy doesn't make the Camaro, Chevy will take a spanking for it. >>> Funny thing is that without competition they are >>> offering us a very good car. IMO, they are giving us the best [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > other car maker has had the balls to deliver those kind of vehicles in > recent times. Cobras certainly are kick-a.s cars, but I still think you have to acknowledge cars like the 300C, Magnum, Charger, and of course the venerable SRT-10 (both Viper and truck). Overall, Dodge has the most in-your-face attitude with what they've offered in recent years. And it all goes back to the Neon SRT-4. >>>>> The whole point of the discussion here is that, IMO, OHC engines >>>>> have inherent design advantages over OHV engines. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Actually, I think they will go the OHC route first. Did you hear that > Chevy is bringing the ZR1 back? Wanna bet it has an OHC engine? ;) Guess we'll have to wait and see... ;) >>> 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 - 23 lines] > IMO, the other reason they do this is to allow them to be beat on by > their drivers and still keep running past the warranty period. Musatangs have had their warranty issues just as much or even moreso than the other makers. There are plenty of bad memories to go around when we start talking about intake plenums, Cobra specs, etc. >>>>> Ford could easily place four >>>>> valve heads with VVT and raise the redline to 7,500 rpm (the OHC [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > AWD, supercharged Sport Trac too. That looked to be one beast of a > vehicle in the spirit of the old GM Typhoon and Cyclone. This is where Ford needs to wake up and smell the coffee. They've got the 450hp Harley F150, but nobody knows about it, and it's limited production. Hello, marketing??? Speaking of blown motors, that's a nice setup. Saleen inverted twin- screw running 6lb of boost on top of a 5.4. Bump the boost a bit and you're over 500hp. So there ya go, Michael. Screw Mustangs, it's time for another blown F150. >>>>> <snip> >>>>> I know you've already claimed that Ford doesn't have to, but have [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > So except for the Mustang (with a few engine variations), are you saying > that Ford is out of the performance picture for the time being? Yup. They need cars that sell in large quantities. Once they have those established maybe then we will see some SVT/SVO type variants. if Ford doesn't get another Taurus/Escort type sales champ in their lineup I don't think they will make it. Their car sales were down 21% year to year for September. The F150 took a beating too and they can't afford that to happen month after month. >>>>>> I know the after market tuners are >>>>>> getting 30-40 more rwhp from them with tuning alone while [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Dodge makes the Challenger and Chevy doesn't make the Camaro, Chevy will > take a spanking for it. GM already screwed over the Camaro crowd when they axed the car early this decade. How many years has it been gone now? These companies don't give two sh.ts about their loyal customer base. They will keep up the charade of building them for months knowing they will delay the launch time after time. All this hype keeps people coming to their web site. I hope I'm wrong. IMO, the Challenger has a better chance of becoming a reality than the Camaro. Chevy has always had to walk a fine line with it to keep it from horning in on Corvette sales. The Corvette guys in GM probably love the fact it is gone. Also, I think Chrysler is probably counting their beans as we speak and finding there aren't enough to go around. What gets shorted remains to be seen. >>>> Funny thing is that without competition they are >>>> offering us a very good car. IMO, they are giving us the best [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > in-your-face attitude with what they've offered in recent years. And it > all goes back to the Neon SRT-4. There are other cars that are good. My point with the Cobras is they are delivered with so much untapped potential hp it is almost ridiculous. Ford has built the Cobra motors to be damn near bullet proof. The '03/'04 engines are some of the toughest SOBs to EVER come out of Detroit. I would venture to say they may actually be THE TOUGHEST engine ever put into a production car. They could RELIABLY put out over TWICE their factory horsepower levels without even removing the valve covers. I know of no other mass produced production engine that could pull off that feat. The GT500 looks to be built the same but I haven't seen enough dyno pulls done on modified engines (i.e with twin screw blowers or turbos) to know for sure. >>>>>> The whole point of the discussion here is that, IMO, OHC engines >>>>>> have inherent design advantages over OHV engines. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Guess we'll have to wait and see... ;) An four-valve, OHC Vette would be on hell of a car, IMO. >>>> 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 - 24 lines] > than the other makers. There are plenty of bad memories to go around > when we start talking about intake plenums, Cobra specs, etc. Not with the GT engines. For the most part they have a very good track record. >>>>>> Ford could easily place four >>>>>> valve heads with VVT and raise the redline to 7,500 rpm (the OHC [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > you're over 500hp. So there ya go, Michael. Screw Mustangs, it's time > for another blown F150. I liked the Lightning but it wasn't something I would buy. I really have no use for a truck that runs that hard. I would rather spend the money on a sports car and have a better overall driving experience. >>>>>> <snip> >>>>>> I know you've already claimed that Ford doesn't have to, but have [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > year to year for September. The F150 took a beating too and they > can't afford that to happen month after month. Just read that in this morning's business section. Looks like Toyota's putting one more nail in Ford's coffin... >>>>>>> I know the after market tuners are >>>>>>> getting 30-40 more rwhp from them with tuning alone while [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > there aren't enough to go around. What gets shorted remains to be > seen. If Chevy screws the public again by not bringing out the Camaro, they can pretty much kiss the performance crowd (except, of course, for the Corvette) goodbye. >>>>> Funny thing is that without competition they are >>>>> offering us a very good car. IMO, they are giving us the best [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > There are other cars that are good. Sure, there are others, but a single maker hasn't come up with that kind of lineup in a while. BTW, we should start another thread about those cars... > My point with the Cobras is they > are delivered with so much untapped potential hp it is almost [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > modified engines (i.e with twin screw blowers or turbos) to know for > sure. Those are pretty tall claims, Michael. If they're all true, I have to wonder why Ford built them that way if they weren't going to build more potent engines. It simply doesn't make financial sense. >>>>>>> The whole point of the discussion here is that, IMO, OHC engines >>>>>>> have inherent design advantages over OHV engines. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > An four-valve, OHC Vette would be on hell of a car, IMO. IMO _any_ Corvette these days is a helluva car. ;) >>>>> Basically, an engine is an air pump. The more air you move the >>>>> more power you make. The OHC design allows more flexibility to [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > have no use for a truck that runs that hard. I would rather spend the > money on a sports car and have a better overall driving experience. Since I can't afford both, I prefer to go with the practicality of a truck, but I also want gobs of power and somewhat decent handling. >>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>> I know you've already claimed that Ford doesn't have to, but have [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Just read that in this morning's business section. Looks like Toyota's > putting one more nail in Ford's coffin... I don't know if it is Toyota pounding the nails in or if it is Ford themselves. >>>>>>>> I know the after market tuners are >>>>>>>> getting 30-40 more rwhp from them with tuning alone while [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > can pretty much kiss the performance crowd (except, of course, for the > Corvette) goodbye. I think they are fully capable of screwing the Camaro fans. They have been doing it for years. Another reason I think GM won't bring the car back is it doesn't have a chassis sitting there for it like Chrysler does with the Challenger. >>>>>> Funny thing is that without competition they are >>>>>> offering us a very good car. IMO, they are giving us the best [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > of lineup in a while. BTW, we should start another thread about those > cars... I will give you that Chrysler has delivered several decent performance cars. More than any other brand, IMO. >> My point with the Cobras is they >> are delivered with so much untapped potential hp it is almost [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > wonder why Ford built them that way if they weren't going to build more > potent engines. It simply doesn't make financial sense. It is true. I have seen too many dyno runs and 1/4 mile ETs to prove it. The reason they built it that way is because John Colletti made it happen. I think he wanted to built a no-holds-barred engine and he got his way. He also wanted the Mustang to DESTROY the Camaro in no uncertain terms. I also think he wanted to deliver an engine for the gear heads to turn into a monster. Fortunately for us Ford has elected to follow his blueprint for the GT500. That engine is basically the terminator with a little more displacement. Personally, I would rather have seen them use the Terminator engine topped with the twin screw blower for the GT500. >>>>>>>> The whole point of the discussion here is that, IMO, OHC engines >>>>>>>> have inherent design advantages over OHV engines. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > IMO _any_ Corvette these days is a helluva car. ;) True, but with a nice and smooth OHC engine it would reach a new level of sweetness, IMO. >>>>>> Basically, an engine is an air pump. The more air you move the >>>>>> more power you make. The OHC design allows more flexibility to [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > Since I can't afford both, I prefer to go with the practicality of a > truck, but I also want gobs of power and somewhat decent handling. >>>>> 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 - 34 lines] >This would be more hp than the LS2 using 1.4 liters less engine >displacement. Yes, OHC engines have some advantages. My point is, under NORMAL use the advantages are negligable. The engines must be wound tight to make use of most of the advantage - Horsepower alone tells only a small part of the story. Today's AVERAGE car runs somewhere around 2000 RPM at legal highway speeds in top gear. Under NORMAL HIGHWAY DRIVING an engine with dual overhead cams and 4 valves per cyl has little if any advantage over a pushrod 2 valve engine of the same displacement. It has NO advantage over that pushrod engine in durability or longevity, all else being equal. It has a definite DISADVANTAGE when it comes to cost to repair. It is also at a disadvantage packaging-wise- as it is significantly larger in virtually all dimensions than a pushrod engine. It is also generally HEAVIER if made of the same materials. Yes, many high output OHC engines are lighter than the equivalent OHV engine, but just because the "low tech" engine elected to stay with cast iron heads and block instead of the aluminum used by many/most OHC engines for at least the heads, and most often the blocks. That said, today's thin cast iron blocks suffer only a small weight penalty over the average aluminum block of only a few years ago. So - if you are talking no-holds barred performance engines, and maintenance/repair costs (as well as production costs) are a secondary consideration - yes, OHC engines have an advantage. DOHC has a marge larger advantage over SOHC than SOHC has over OHV technology when you get into the higher output higher speed engines because variable cam geometry is so much easier on a dual cam setup. This does NOT make a pushrod engine necessarily a lesser engine for some 90+% of owners and drivers. 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 - 38 lines] > part of the story. Today's AVERAGE car runs somewhere around 2000 RPM > at legal highway speeds in top gear. Truth be told we could all get by with three cylinder shoe boxes for basic transportation. People don't buy high performance car because they need them. ;) > Under NORMAL HIGHWAY DRIVING an engine with dual overhead cams and 4 > valves per cyl has little if any advantage over a pushrod 2 valve > engine of the same displacement. It has NO advantage over that pushrod > engine in durability or longevity, all else being equal. I disagree with the above. With VVT, multiple intake and/or exhaust valves, dual tuned runners etc. the power band can be enhanced from idle to redline. In the OHV engines I have run to high mileage the bigest chance of parts failure has rested with the valve train. It can be a ticking lifter, bent push rod or a bum rocker arm. IMO, these components are the Achille's heals for OHV engines. They don't exist in an OHC engine and therefore con not be the cause of failures. The durability of Ford's 4.6L is legendary already and I chalk a lot of it up to the OHC design. Fewer reciprocating parts mean greater reliability and longer life, IMO. > It has a definite DISADVANTAGE when it comes to cost to repair. > It is also at a disadvantage packaging-wise- as it is significantly [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > cast iron heads and block instead of the aluminum used by many/most > OHC engines for at least the heads, and most often the blocks. I will give you that OHC heads are more a throw away part the their OHV counter part. That being said the infrequency of early catastrophic engine failure in today's engines (OHV and OHC) makes this a minimal issue. If today's cars are maintained well engine failures are few and far between. > That said, today's thin cast iron blocks suffer only a small weight > penalty over the average aluminum block of only a few years ago. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > This does NOT make a pushrod engine necessarily a lesser engine for > some 90+% of owners and drivers. I agree. But I think we also both agree that for high performance applications OHC engine have inherent advantages that OHV engines can't match. Remember the 427 SOHC engine Ford had in the 1960s? The OHC design made it one of the best engines of that era. It was the only engine that NASCAR banned because it was eating the Hemis alive. The OHC design made it too durable to run with push rod motors. This also reminds me of the only turbine car to run in the Indy 500. It bitched slapped the entire field of cars that year until its gearbox failed with two laps remaining. I wonder what we would have in today's cars if they hadn't banned the turbine and SOHC engines? At a minimum I think we would have seen OHC engines in production cars much sooner. >> Under NORMAL HIGHWAY DRIVING an engine with dual overhead cams and 4 >> valves per cyl has little if any advantage over a pushrod 2 valve [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >up to the OHC design. Fewer reciprocating parts mean greater >reliability and longer life, IMO. Comparing to FORD OHV engines I'll give you that. The valve train on the 551M/351C was definitely inferior. As was the Bos 351 (and the Chevy 396) They all had rocker and/or valve spring issues (but they ran insane speeds for pushrod engines) The Chevy SBC was also legendary - and with proper oil changes could EASILY go 200,000 miles in the good years (when they didn't have "butter" camshafts) So could 318s and even 225s. If those engines had the advantage of today's oil technology and leadfree gasoline (with the proper valve materials) and EFI they would have run extremely stronly against today's engines as far as reliability is concerned. The logenvity of todays engines has as much to do with those 3 items as anything else. Leadfree fuel is the major advantage, followed by fuel injection and electronic engine controls, followed by lubrication technology (up untill about 2000). Today's oils are headed back due to emission demands reducing the EP additives etc. >> It has a definite DISADVANTAGE when it comes to cost to repair. >> It is also at a disadvantage packaging-wise- as it is significantly [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >hadn't banned the turbine and SOHC engines? At a minimum I think we >would have seen OHC engines in production cars much sooner. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > I agree. But I think we also both agree that for high performance > applications OHC engine have inherent advantages that OHV engines can't [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > hadn't banned the turbine and SOHC engines? At a minimum I think we > would have seen OHC engines in production cars much sooner. And we'd probably have those flying cars that tehy promised us back in the late 50's. In general that echoes my thoughts on the OHC as well. IMHO they are just delaying the inevitable and losing mileage and durability in the mean time. 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 >> I agree. But I think we also both agree that for high performance >> applications OHC engine have inherent advantages that OHV engines can't [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > IMHO they are just delaying the inevitable and losing mileage and > durability in the mean time. Meet George Jetson, Jane his wife, daughter Judy, his boy Elroy... LMAO >> I agree. But I think we also both agree that for high performance >> applications OHC engine have inherent advantages that OHV engines [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > well. IMHO they are just delaying the inevitable and losing mileage and > durability in the mean time. Much of what we have in the cars of today are based in racing's roots. I have no doubt that if turbines were allowed to run at Indy and the rest of the cars would have to conform and also run turbines or be perpetual loosers. Had the Indy cars gone turbine back then the fans would be open to them in production cars and actually demand them to be built. Chrysler went down that road briefly but interest never developed. Had Indy let the turbines run things would probably have turned out differently. >>> I agree. But I think we also both agree that for high performance >>> applications OHC engine have inherent advantages that OHV engines [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Indy let the turbines run things would probably have turned out > differently. The conspiracy theorists of course say that the car companies couldn't have it because they last too long. 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 >>>> I agree. But I think we also both agree that for high performance >>>> applications OHC engine have inherent advantages that OHV engines [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > The conspiracy theorists of course say that the car companies > couldn't have it because they last too long. And of course, people who know what they're talking about would say that turbines are great for specific tasks but not suitable for passenger cars. >>>>> I agree. But I think we also both agree that for high performance >>>>> applications OHC engine have inherent advantages that OHV engines [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > And of course, people who know what they're talking about would say that > turbines are great for specific tasks but not suitable for passenger cars. That could be said about most suitable power plants, early in their development stages... It may be true now, but that doesn't mean it will be later... >> The conspiracy theorists of course say that the car companies >> couldn't have it because they last too long. > > And of course, people who know what they're talking about would say that > turbines are great for specific tasks but not suitable for passenger cars. I'm not so sure about that. You know there was a guy on one of those cable shows a few years back who drove a turbine powered Vette. He drove it normally in traffic. And then there's the GM/Jay Leno thing. Here is an interesting article on the Chrysler turbine http://www.turbinecar.com/sia/sia127.htm Heh, 130HP and 425 lb/ft Signature"Are you da poe-lice?" "No ma'am, we're musicians." "Too bad it wasn't "personality theft"...you'd be immune." - Herb Tarlek >>> The conspiracy theorists of course say that the car companies >>> couldn't have it because they last too long. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Heh, 130HP and 425 lb/ft And HORRENDOUS fuel consumption. Even a turbine chopper uses more fuel than a piston engined one - just cheaper fuel. Not sure it ballances out. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>>> The conspiracy theorists of course say that the car companies >>>> couldn't have it because they last too long. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > fuel than a piston engined one - just cheaper fuel. Not sure it > ballances out. I didn't look at any of that info and didn't even think about it. I'll have to see if there are any consumption listings for the GM thing. Signature"Are you da poe-lice?" "No ma'am, we're musicians." "Too bad it wasn't "personality theft"...you'd be immune." - Herb Tarlek >>>>> I agree. But I think we also both agree that for high performance >>>>> applications OHC engine have inherent advantages that OHV engines [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > And of course, people who know what they're talking about would say that > turbines are great for specific tasks but not suitable for passenger cars. ...and just what do you know that makes your statement more truthful than mine? Chrysler had a turbine engine in a passenger vehicle back in the 1960s. It worked. Imagine what another 40-50 years of development might have brought. Do you realize how durable a turbine engine would be in a production car considering how long they last in airplanes? The fuel turbines burn is less expensive that gasoline. Just because the piston engine is the most common in automobiles today doesn't necessarily make it the best design. >>>>>> I agree. But I think we also both agree that for high performance >>>>>> applications OHC engine have inherent advantages that OHV engines [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > piston engine is the most common in automobiles today doesn't > necessarily make it the best design. Jay Leno's proto burns biodiesel. Signature"Are you da poe-lice?" "No ma'am, we're musicians." "Too bad it wasn't "personality theft"...you'd be immune." - Herb Tarlek >>>>>>> I agree. But I think we also both agree that for high >>>>>>> performance applications OHC engine have inherent advantages that [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Jay Leno's proto burns biodiesel. A turbine will burn damn near any fuel. >>>>>>>> I agree. But I think we also both agree that for high >>>>>>>> performance applications OHC engine have inherent advantages [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > A turbine will burn damn near any fuel. That's good. Maybe we could feed them some of all that wasted used oil you change out? :oP Signature"Are you da poe-lice?" "No ma'am, we're musicians." "So round, so firm, so fully packed, so easy on the draw" - Daffy Duck "Too bad it wasn't "personality theft"...you'd be immune." - Herb Tarlek >>>>>>>>> I agree. But I think we also both agree that for high >>>>>>>>> performance applications OHC engine have inherent advantages [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > That's good. Maybe we could feed them some of all that wasted used > oil you change out? :oP I would be willing to bet I spend less per year to change the oil/filter in my Explorer than you do with your Amsoil setup. ;) >>>>>>>>>> I agree. But I think we also both agree that for high >>>>>>>>>> performance applications OHC engine have inherent advantages [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > I would be willing to bet I spend less per year to change the oil/filter > in my Explorer than you do with your Amsoil setup. ;) About $68 in a year, but that's for 7.5 quarts and two filters. BUTT that's not my reference. How many quarts of used oil and filters do you toss out in a year compared to my one filter and 6 quarts? Not that I'm overly green, I just thought I'd point it out. Keep in mind that in the Mustang with it's limited mileage I do an oil analysis and change the full flow filter every year, not all the oil or the by-pass filter. Signature"Are you da poe-lice?" "No ma'am, we're musicians." "So round, so firm, so fully packed, so easy on the draw" - Daffy Duck "Too bad it wasn't "personality theft"...you'd be immune." - Herb Tarlek >>>>>>>>>>> I agree. But I think we also both agree that for high >>>>>>>>>>> performance applications OHC engine have inherent advantages [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > Mustang with it's limited mileage I do an oil analysis and change the > full flow filter every year, not all the oil or the by-pass filter. I do four oil changes at less than $10 each for a total of less than $40 per year. The truck has close to 200k miles, burns no oil, leaks no oil and runs great. I take my used oil to the landfill and that is as green as I am going to get on the matter. How much did you pay for the initial installation of that systems in parts and/or labor? >>>>>>>>>>>> I agree. But I think we also both agree that for high >>>>>>>>>>>> performance applications OHC engine have inherent advantages [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] >as I am going to get on the matter. How much did you pay for the >initial installation of that systems in parts and/or labor? Both of my cars get 4 changes a year. The oil goes to be recycled by SafetyKlean so it is not "discarded". 4 liters per change on the Poncho, and 6.5 on the Merc SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree. But I think we also both agree that for high >>>>>>>>>>>>> performance applications OHC engine have inherent advantages [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > SafetyKlean so it is not "discarded". > 4 liters per change on the Poncho, and 6.5 on the Merc I don't know exactly what our landfill does with the oil but I'm sure it isn't discarded either. Personally, I think changing the oil every 3,000 miles is more important than using high dollar synthetics. Changing it regularly flushes out contaminants and for most users provides more than adequate protection. Maybe some vehicles that see extremely cold weather benefit from the better viscosity properties of Mobil One or other synthetics. My truck doesn't burn (or leak) any noticeable amount of oil between changes and it has seen a variety of brands (i.e. whatever is on sale by the case at Costco) for as long as I have owned it. I don't even use Ford filters all the time. If anyone really wants to do their engine a favor then just change the oil regularly. Same goes for the automatic transmission which, IMO, is the most neglected component in most vehicles today. I change the fluid and filter in the Explorer every 30k-40k miles and am still running on the original transmission which, for an Explorer, is quite an accomplishment at nearly 200k miles on the odometer. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree. But I think we also both agree that for high >>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance applications OHC engine have inherent [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > I don't know exactly what our landfill does with the oil but I'm sure > it isn't discarded either. I always go to Discount (now Advance Auto Parts) because they've got the oil recycle bins there. I dump the old, buy new plus filter, and that's it. Easy. > Personally, I think changing the oil every > 3,000 miles is more important than using high dollar synthetics. Agreed. However, I've had very good luck with Mobil-1 on the MPV, as it's got a high-revving V6 with poor top lubrication. > Changing it regularly flushes out contaminants and for most users > provides more than adequate protection. Maybe some vehicles that see > extremely cold weather benefit from the better viscosity properties of > Mobil One or other synthetics. I have to believe it also helps in the summer here when it's consistently over 90 degrees during the day. > My truck doesn't burn (or leak) any noticeable amount of oil between > changes and it has seen a variety of brands (i.e. whatever is on sale > by the case at Costco) for as long as I have owned it. I don't even > use Ford filters all the time. If anyone really wants to do their > engine a favor then just change the oil regularly. This has got to be the single most beneficial thing to do for any vehicle. > Same goes for the > automatic transmission which, IMO, is the most neglected component in > most vehicles today. I change the fluid and filter in the Explorer > every 30k-40k miles and am still running on the original transmission > which, for an Explorer, is quite an accomplishment at nearly 200k > miles on the odometer. Good deal. Is it a 302? I do pretty much the same here. The summer heat certainly doesn't help, so it's always good to adhere to that kind of schedule. >>>><snip> >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > oil recycle bins there. I dump the old, buy new plus filter, and that's > it. Easy. I just buy it by the case. If I have a choice I'll choose Havoline more times than not but I just want to be SAE certified. >> Personally, I think changing the oil every >> 3,000 miles is more important than using high dollar synthetics. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I have to believe it also helps in the summer here when it's > consistently over 90 degrees during the day. I don't think the hot weather is as big a concern mainly because most engines are engineered to run at 180-200 degrees anyway. In very cold weather at startup the engine will run for a period of time without proper lubrication especially with regular oil being extremely viscous at near zero temperatures. Most of an engine's wear occurs during this period. Synthetics have much better flow characteristics at low temperatures so the engine runs less time without oil at the bearings etc. just after startup. >> My truck doesn't burn (or leak) any noticeable amount of oil between >> changes and it has seen a variety of brands (i.e. whatever is on sale [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > This has got to be the single most beneficial thing to do for any > vehicle. Yes, it is. Especially, considering how well made today's engine are in most vehicles. With just the most basic of maintenance they can last 150k-200k miles or longer. >> Same goes for the >> automatic transmission which, IMO, is the most neglected component in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > heat certainly doesn't help, so it's always good to adhere to that kind > of schedule. It is the 4.0L V-6. IMO, that is one durable and very good performing engine. To have as many miles as it does and not use any oil between changes it quite amazing to me. The oil level on the dipstick doesn't drop any between 3,000 miles oil changes. Transmissions are where the hot climates have a big impact. Heat degrades transmission fluid very quickly. Down where you live I would change transmission fluid/filter every 25k miles. >>>>><snip> >>>> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > temperatures so the engine runs less time without oil at the bearings > etc. just after startup. All true, but my biggest worry is idling in rush hour with the a/c running full and it's 93 out. The temp gauge creeps up just a bit, so it's peace of mind to know that synth might help a bit more than dino. Could all be in my mind, but I'm willing to pay a few dollars extra for the synth just for that peace of mind. >>> My truck doesn't burn (or leak) any noticeable amount of oil between >>> changes and it has seen a variety of brands (i.e. whatever is on [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > in most vehicles. With just the most basic of maintenance they can > last 150k-200k miles or longer. The MPV is up past 107k now and it's running great. Transmission is still holding up very well also. BTW, the 3.0 is a SOHC. And it's RWD to boot. :) >>> Same goes for the >>> automatic transmission which, IMO, is the most neglected component [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > changes it quite amazing to me. The oil level on the dipstick doesn't > drop any between 3,000 miles oil changes. Same with the MPV 3.0. Don't have to add oil in between changes. Now, the Mustang's a different story... ;) > Transmissions are where the hot climates have a big impact. Heat > degrades transmission fluid very quickly. Down where you live I would > change transmission fluid/filter every 25k miles. I've been running around 30k between transmission fluid/filter changes with no problems. The MPV still shifts nice and crisp at WOT and it runs right up to red line. Around town is nice and mellow, just like it should be. >>>>>> <snip> >>>>> Both of my cars get 4 changes a year. The oil goes to be recycled [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Could all be in my mind, but I'm willing to pay a few dollars extra for > the synth just for that peace of mind. Using synthetics can't hurt. It is better than regular oil. >>>> My truck doesn't burn (or leak) any noticeable amount of oil between >>>> changes and it has seen a variety of brands (i.e. whatever is on [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > still holding up very well also. BTW, the 3.0 is a SOHC. And it's RWD > to boot. :) I am amazed at just how well made the vehicles are today. Even the bottom of the barrel is yards above the best ones of 15-20 years ago. >>>> Same goes for the >>>> automatic transmission which, IMO, is the most neglected component [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Same with the MPV 3.0. Don't have to add oil in between changes. Now, > the Mustang's a different story... ;) The 302 was an engine from another era when tolerances were much sloppier. Mine is the same way. If I run it hard it would need up to a quart between changes and it was that way since it was new. This is another reason that the 5.0L engines need regular oil changes because the slop between the pistons and cylinder walls contaminate the oil more than a tighter engine. >> Transmissions are where the hot climates have a big impact. Heat >> degrades transmission fluid very quickly. Down where you live I would [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > runs right up to red line. Around town is nice and mellow, just like it > should be. Changing every 30k miles should be fine. Just keep the transmission fluid nice and pink. >>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>> Both of my cars get 4 changes a year. The oil goes to be recycled [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Using synthetics can't hurt. It is better than regular oil. The added cost is miniscule considering the peace of mind. Hell, we'd blow the entire savings for the year in one night out to the bar. ;) >>>>> My truck doesn't burn (or leak) any noticeable amount of oil >>>>> between changes and it has seen a variety of brands (i.e. whatever [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I am amazed at just how well made the vehicles are today. Even the > bottom of the barrel is yards above the best ones of 15-20 years ago. And it's a '96. That platform was the same one used on the 929 back then if you recall. >>>>> Same goes for the >>>>> automatic transmission which, IMO, is the most neglected component [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > the slop between the pistons and cylinder walls contaminate the oil > more than a tighter engine. Yeah, tell me about it! You know, it's amazing too - the difference between my '93 5.0 and the '96 MPV. The '96 is a nice, tight, high- revving SOHC, and the 5.0 is, well, a 5.0. ;) >>> Transmissions are where the hot climates have a big impact. Heat >>> degrades transmission fluid very quickly. Down where you live I [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Changing every 30k miles should be fine. Just keep the transmission > fluid nice and pink. Yes, that nice, cherry pink is good. ;) >>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>> Both of my cars get 4 changes a year. The oil goes to be recycled [quoted text clipped - 94 lines] > > Yes, that nice, cherry pink is good. ;) ...are we still talking about transmission fluid? >>>>> Transmissions are where the hot climates have a big impact. Heat >>>>> degrades transmission fluid very quickly. Down where you live I [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > ...are we still talking about transmission fluid? Heh, Amsoil 20w50 racing oil is the color of ATF. And I learned from and old engineer/engine builder that you can tell a good bit about your oil by squeezing it between your fingers. Signature"Are you da poe-lice?" "No ma'am, we're musicians." "So round, so firm, so fully packed, so easy on the draw" - Daffy Duck "Too bad it wasn't "personality theft"...you'd be immune." - Herb Tarlek > I don't know exactly what our landfill does with the oil but I'm sure it > isn't discarded either. Personally, I think changing the oil every [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > extremely cold weather benefit from the better viscosity properties of > Mobil One or other synthetics. If you have a good filter there should be no need to flush any contaminates and a simple drain and refill isn't much of a flush. I did flush my Mustang when I changed to synthetic, or I should say real synthetic. The crap left behind by 5 years of Castrol GTX was truely astonishing. > My truck doesn't burn (or leak) any noticeable amount of oil between > changes and it has seen a variety of brands (i.e. whatever is on sale by [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > for an Explorer, is quite an accomplishment at nearly 200k miles on the > odometer. Now riddle me this. If you insist on changing the motor oil at 3-4k miles, why are you comfortable with changing the ATF at 40k with no time limit? ATF is put through just as rigorous usage if not worse than the engine oil is and I've seen ATF described as "The most complex compound fluid used in any automotive application." Also consider the filtering (or general lack there of) done in an auto trans. Most I've seen consist of a felt like substance similar to a bypass filter but are way smaller in surface area and you always have a lot more metal filings in a trans than you do in an engine. Signature"Are you da poe-lice?" "No ma'am, we're musicians." "So round, so firm, so fully packed, so easy on the draw" - Daffy Duck "Too bad it wasn't "personality theft"...you'd be immune." - Herb Tarlek >> I don't know exactly what our landfill does with the oil but I'm sure >> it isn't discarded either. Personally, I think changing the oil every [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > synthetic. The crap left behind by 5 years of Castrol GTX was truely > astonishing. I'm referring to regular oil, not synthetics. Any oil picks up all sorts of chemical compounds that are detrimental to bearings, cylinder walls etc. I'm not convinced that any one filter can get rid of all of them over a year's time. Maybe they do. I think the most sure way of getting rid of them is to replace the oil altogether. >> My truck doesn't burn (or leak) any noticeable amount of oil between >> changes and it has seen a variety of brands (i.e. whatever is on sale [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > in surface area and you always have a lot more metal filings in a trans > than you do in an engine. I don't change it on a scheduled regimen because it is very easy to look at transmission fluid to tell it is slightly burned. Once the fluid has reached this point it gets changed. If it doesn't have a burned look it is good to go for awhile longer. I had less than 10k miles on a transmission oil change when the engine overheated from a bad thermostat. It got changed because again because of the overheating of the engine affecting the transmission fluid slightly. Unlike engine oil the transmission fluid doesn't get residuals from the combustion process so unless it overheats it can stay stable for quite a while. Once it gets too hot though it needs to be replaced. >> I don't know exactly what our landfill does with the oil but I'm sure it >> isn't discarded either. Personally, I think changing the oil every 3,000 [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > limit? ATF is put through just as rigorous usage if not worse than the > engine oil is and I've seen ATF described as "The most complex compound There is NO COMBUSTION going on in your automatic transmission, the contaminations involved is orders of magnitude less... > fluid used in any automotive application." Also consider the filtering (or > general lack there of) done in an auto trans. Most I've seen consist of a > felt like substance similar to a bypass filter but are way smaller in > surface area and you always have a lot more metal filings in a trans than > you do in an engine. >>> I don't know exactly what our landfill does with the oil but I'm sure it >>> isn't discarded either. Personally, I think changing the oil every 3,000 [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >There is NO COMBUSTION going on in your automatic transmission, the >contaminations involved is orders of magnitude less... No combustion, but lots of friction and more wear than in an engine. The mechanism is also orders of magnatude more sensitive to contamination, with the clearances in the valve bodies being EXTREMELY close. Not as critical on today's electronic transmisssiona as on the old "hydraulic brain" but still critical. There is also a LOT of heat involved, which causes oxidation of the fluid, just like combustion. You definitely have less acid production and dilution - but it is, as I have repeated several times, still CRITICAL. >> fluid used in any automotive application." Also consider the filtering (or >> general lack there of) done in an auto trans. Most I've seen consist of a >> felt like substance similar to a bypass filter but are way smaller in >> surface area and you always have a lot more metal filings in a trans than >> you do in an engine. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>> I don't know exactly what our landfill does with the oil but I'm sure it >>> isn't discarded either. Personally, I think changing the oil every 3,000 [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > There is NO COMBUSTION going on in your automatic transmission, the > contaminations involved is orders of magnitude less... I disagree on the magnitude. Signature"Are you da poe-lice?" "No ma'am, we're musicians." "So round, so firm, so fully packed, so easy on the draw" - Daffy Duck "Too bad it wasn't "personality theft"...you'd be immune." - Herb Tarlek >>>> I don't know exactly what our landfill does with the oil but I'm sure >>>> it isn't discarded either. Personally, I think changing the oil every [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > I disagree on the magnitude. OK, one order of magnitude... After all many automatic transmissions go the life of the automobile they are in, often well over 100,000 miles and NEVER have their automatic transmission fluid changed. You cannot get away with that with the engine oil... >I don't know exactly what our landfill does with the oil but I'm sure it >isn't discarded either. Personally, I think changing the oil every [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >for an Explorer, is quite an accomplishment at nearly 200k miles on the >odometer. I'll agree 100%, with one addition. Use decent oil.Use heavy enough oil for the conditions. 5W20 is not heavy enough for high speed high temperature running. In ANY engine. I don't care what the manual says. 5W20 oil is for C.A.F.E. and notheing more. Extended oil changes are a product of consumer legislation - an engine must last through warranty on the reduced oil change schedule published. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>>>>>>>>>>> I agree. But I think we also both agree that for high >>>>>>>>>>>> performance applications OHC engine have inherent advantages [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > as I am going to get on the matter. How much did you pay for the > initial installation of that systems in parts and/or labor? Land fill?? Are you supposed to do that?? Good lord what kind of oil and filter are you getting for less than $10? I have to admit I havn't looked but that seems awfully cheap even at Walmart prices. The remote oil filter kit was about $120, but totally worth it to me. Now I will admit that to save money on extended drains you have to drive a lot of miles. Imagine the difference if you drove enough that you had to change your oil every month. What I do for my habits and what I drive is over kill but I still only do one change a year. Also I would only spend about $55 if I only had 5 quarts and one filter. Signature"Are you da poe-lice?" "No ma'am, we're musicians." "So round, so firm, so fully packed, so easy on the draw" - Daffy Duck "Too bad it wasn't "personality theft"...you'd be immune." - Herb Tarlek >>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree. But I think we also both agree that for high >>>>>>>>>>>>> performance applications OHC engine have inherent [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > kill but I still only do one change a year. Also I would only spend > about $55 if I only had 5 quarts and one filter. Our landfill has a large tank that the oil gets dumped in and they empty it regularly. It doesn't get mixed in with the rest of the garbage. They also take used batteries and other household liquids. For my needs the cheap oil/filter route has proven to work well. The nearly 200k trouble free miles on my Explorer is a testament that it works. There are sales about every weekend for oil filters of one brand or another (sometimes under $2 each). Buying oil by the case at discount stores is the best way to get the lowest price per quart. It isn't hard to make DIY oil changes for dirt cheap. Many local shops will do it for around $20. I'm not saying your setup doesn't work. Frankly, I just don't know one way or the other. That $120 you spend to get the system in the car covers me for three years of oil changes and the amount you pay for the annual oil/filter change probably covers me for the year too. IMO, there are very few circumstances that require the type of system you have installed. It looks to be more of a novelty thing than a practical one. Like I said, I'm not saying you are crazy for using it as it probably works for your use. I also don't think it delivers any practical benefit, cost wise or from an engine longevity aspect, for the overwhelming majority of auto owners. > Our landfill has a large tank that the oil gets dumped in and they empty > it regularly. It doesn't get mixed in with the rest of the garbage. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > practical benefit, cost wise or from an engine longevity aspect, for the > overwhelming majority of auto owners. Right, I also have very large, very expensive stereo equipment, which certainly isn't necessary. And in reality with the dual filter and Amsoil or Donaldson filters I would most likely get just as good of service form Mobil 1 or Havolin, I just prefer the better stuff. You should spring for an oil analysis once JFTHOI just to see what it says. Depending in the quality of your filters you may be shocked to see that it's as good as it was when it came out the bottle. Signature"Are you da poe-lice?" "No ma'am, we're musicians." "So round, so firm, so fully packed, so easy on the draw" - Daffy Duck "Too bad it wasn't "personality theft"...you'd be immune." - Herb Tarlek >> Our landfill has a large tank that the oil gets dumped in and they >> empty it regularly. It doesn't get mixed in with the rest of the [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Depending in the quality of your filters you may be shocked to see that > it's as good as it was when it came out the bottle. I have received all the analysis I need from my Explorer's odometer and oil dipstick. They both tell me that the inexpensive oil and filters I use are working just fine. ;) >>> Our landfill has a large tank that the oil gets dumped in and they >>> empty it regularly. It doesn't get mixed in with the rest of the [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > oil dipstick. They both tell me that the inexpensive oil and filters I > use are working just fine. ;) I meant just once to see what it says. You would find it interesting regardless of the report. Signature"Are you da poe-lice?" "No ma'am, we're musicians." "So round, so firm, so fully packed, so easy on the draw" - Daffy Duck "Too bad it wasn't "personality theft"...you'd be immune." - Herb Tarlek >>>>>> I agree. But I think we also both agree that for high performance >>>>>> applications OHC engine have inherent advantages that OHV engines [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > piston engine is the most common in automobiles today doesn't > necessarily make it the best design. You're right Chrysler had one in the 60s. Must be a huge conspiracy holding it back. >>>>>>> I agree. But I think we also both agree that for high >>>>>>> performance applications OHC engine have inherent advantages that [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > You're right Chrysler had one in the 60s. Must be a huge conspiracy > holding it back. Where did I mention anything about a conspiracy? >>>>>>>> lol a measly 5.4L Ford engine (probably out of a lawnboy mower) >>>>>>> Oh, you're just being a slanderous bastard. [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > as is reaching higher rpm rates with less precise machining and less > moving mass in the valve train. Good point. AFAIK, there are no multiple-valve OHV engines (yet). However, 2 valves per cylinder is certainly not the death knell that some make it out to be. Witness current offerings by Chrysler and GM. >>> 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. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > reliability. The OHV engines do make for a more compact design though > and somewhat lighter weight. I basically agree with everything you've said, but keep in mind that I only said that the OHC design doesn't have a _clear_ advantage. It can be argued that the DOHC is more complex and has more moving parts to wear out and/or break, thereby possibly negating the advantages of the extra valves per cylinder. All things considered, current technology enables OHV and OHC engines to be on par with each other. I believe it all comes down to preference. >>>>>>>>> lol a measly 5.4L Ford engine (probably out of a lawnboy mower) >>>>>>>> Oh, you're just being a slanderous bastard. [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > However, 2 valves per cylinder is certainly not the death knell that > some make it out to be. Witness current offerings by Chrysler and GM. The two valve engines make for good low end torque numbers. They can't hang with the high end breathing and high rpm redline potential of an OHC engine without some very expensive machining and/or compromises in low end performance. Matching VVT with a multi-valve OHC engine makes for some very potent potential regarding hp/torque across the entire rpm range to well over 7,000 rpm. IMO, Ford is getting hp from their modular motors very easily where GM and Chrysler can only get high hp numbers from their OHV engines by increasing displacement. Making hp through sheer displacement isn't that difficult or impressive, IMO. Saying that, don't forget I plan to put a 427W in the old Mustang. ;) >>>> 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. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > wear out and/or break, thereby possibly negating the advantages of the > extra valves per cylinder. This is where I have to disagree. I think the OHC engines are less complex and are more reliable due to their design. Look at the complexity of the VVT on the OHV engines. If they ever get multi-valve technology then they will be even more complex. Whether these OHV engines with VVT are durable remains to be seen. We know for certain VVT is durable on OHC motors. One of the major problems for any OHV engine is the frailty of push rods, lifters and rocker arms. This is a lot of moving mass to account for, especially in the upper rpm range. The OHC engines don't have this issue. Although they may be percieved as more complex I think they are actually simpler. We perceive them as complex because we think it is new technology. It really isn't. All you have to do is look at the track record of the OHC engines in the cars that use them. It is stellar. The 4.6L is proving to be even more durable than the 302 and that is saying something. > All things considered, current technology enables OHV and OHC engines to > be on par with each other. I believe it all comes down to preference. I agree. The one big advantage I see with OHV engines is their smaller size. Take that away and, IMO, there isn't much of a reason for their existence in today's automobile world. >>>>>>>>>> lol a measly 5.4L Ford engine (probably out of a lawnboy >>>>>>>>>> mower) [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > difficult or impressive, IMO. Saying that, don't forget I plan to put > a 427W in the old Mustang. ;) There's hope yet! ;) >>>>> 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 [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > proving to be even more durable than the 302 and that is saying > something. Michael, in a warped kind of way way you are making my point by going with the 427 in your LX. :) >> All things considered, current technology enables OHV and OHC engines >> to be on par with each other. I believe it all comes down to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > smaller size. Take that away and, IMO, there isn't much of a reason > for their existence in today's automobile world. Then why are you planning on that 427??? ;) >>>>>>>>>>> lol a measly 5.4L Ford engine (probably out of a lawnboy >>>>>>>>>>> mower) [quoted text clipped - 131 lines] > > Then why are you planning on that 427??? ;) If I had my druthers I would LOVE to stuff an '03/'04 Cobra motor with a Kenne Bell blower on top into the engine bay. The 427W is easier and less expensive but, make no mistake, the Cobra motor would bitch slap it with ease. >>>>>>>>>>>> lol a measly 5.4L Ford engine (probably out of a lawnboy >>>>>>>>>>>> mower) [quoted text clipped - 136 lines] > less expensive but, make no mistake, the Cobra motor would bitch slap it > with ease. Well, of course it would! And that brings us back to the SN65. Remember that thing? Awesome... >>>>>>>>>>>>> lol a measly 5.4L Ford engine (probably out of a lawnboy >>>>>>>>>>>>> mower) [quoted text clipped - 173 lines] > Well, of course it would! And that brings us back to the SN65. > Remember that thing? Awesome... That engine would make a Yugo sweet. > > 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. > 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > using its advertised 385 hp number and not the real world dyno numbers > that indicated they were somewhat higher. Mike, HP/liter means absolutely nothing. There isn't any tax for using extra displacement. Weight and external size of the motor is what's important. Patrick >>> 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 [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > extra displacement. Weight and external size of the motor is what's > important. HP/liter means something when talking about an engine's power production efficiency. A Viper engine weighs in at about 650 lbs. and a Z06 at about 460 lbs. The 4.6L weighs in at around 440 lbs. The Ford Triton V-10 weighs in at 635 lbs. fully dressed. I will give you that the external size of OHC engines are greater than OHV engines. The weight looks to be nearly equal. >>>> 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. " Here is the latest info... 5500 produced in 2008, they will be SRT8's only w the 6.1L hemi and AutoStick Transmission. 2009 they will have a 3.5L V6, 5.7L Hemi, and 6.1L Hemi w/ Optional 6-Speed Manual. Looks like it will be very close to the concept. Different wheels and a few small changes but overall it is pretty close." Pictures and conjecture at: http://www.bmcforums.com/showthread.php?t=39341 SignatureFrank ess > have you guys been checking out the new Challenger? I definitely am really > thinking hard about getting one. Can I get one with a manual tranny? If not I'm not interested. Bob |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.