Hemi Challenger

Page 2 of 7  


NO it's 500 factory horsepower for $43,000 MSRP! I could care less if Shelby or SVT is involved or not.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

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.
--
"Wow, I want a billion Dollars and a pet monkey!" - Dale Jarrett

"Paul's vocabulary is rather large, but
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

You and your Titan are full of crap. Post some proof, butthead.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 12:36:15 -0500, WindsorFox

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.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:

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.
--
"Wow, I want a billion Dollars and a pet monkey!" - Dale Jarrett

"Paul's vocabulary is rather large, but
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 21:59:59 -0500, WindsorFox

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.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
WindsorFox wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Mike,
OHV (pushrod) engines engines can utilize VVT too. Check out the new Viper mill.

Cheaper to build and easier to package. OHV is too tall/wide.

Again, no it isn't.

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.

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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. ;)
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Joe wrote:

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.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Discussing which makers underrate and overrate will always be suspect unless we take said vehicles out to the dyno.

See below.

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.

Take a look at the '08 Dodge 4.7 SOHC numbers below. Not too shabby. And it's only 2V. ;)

Just like GM and Chrysler have done with their OHV motors.

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...

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. ;)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Joe wrote:

Ford 6.8L SOHC 3V(2005 & up) HP - 362 @ 4750 RPM TQ - 457 @ 3250 RPM
Rob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

that

That's a V10. I should've specified V8s...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

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
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<clare at snyder.on.ca> wrote in message

Fords 460 was a Lincoln car engine long before it was a truck engine...

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
My Name Is Nobody wrote:

AND the 413 was a car engine long before it was a truck engine...
Rob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 23:04:23 -0400, trainfan1

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
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.