Hemi Challenger

Page 3 of 7  
trainfan1 wrote:


I know a guy with a 413 Max Wedge on a stand.
--
"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:
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?

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


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

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.

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 never said OHV engines aren't reliable. ;)

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.

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

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.

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

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!!!
--
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:

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.

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?

I wouldn't say they screwed up the engine design as much as they screwed up the head gasket specifications.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

And the bearing specs. Any bearing that cannot stand2% glycol in the oil is JUNK.
--
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

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 ASS, and was about 15-20 years ahead of it's time...

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

Only the top end of the SHO engine was engineered by Yamaha.
--
"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:

happens to be in Mexico. However, it is NOT really a "HEMI".

Ford by International - a modified version of the International (Navistar) "S" Series.

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?

handed it.

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


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

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.

GM has been under-rating since the LS1 came out.
Even comparing stock to stock the hp/liter

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

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 think most all manufacturers under rate there performance engines nowadays. None of them want to get caught shorting the buyer.

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

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.

Yes, a $4K upgrade can do wonderful things.
Patrick
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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!!!!!
--
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.