Hemi Challenger

Page 4 of 7  
<clare at snyder.on.ca> wrote in message wrote:


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

Thanks. You saved me a lot of typing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
--
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:

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

And NONE of this has anything to do with where the camshafts are located.
--
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:

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

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

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

The "blower" mustang starts with lower CR out of the box than the non blower 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:

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

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.

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...

That's the problem. We have to imagine.

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.

Sorry, Michael, but I can't buy it. I see it as the 4.6 being "under- engineered".

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

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 shit too.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Not yet, at least. But that's all part of what we're talking about here.

Absolutely! I think the Mustang is one of the best deals out there now, even with "only" 300hp. ;)

Totally agreed. Like Patrick used to say (poorly paraphrased), it's a great time to have a driver's license. ;)

They'll either go to V10s or big blocks. LOL!

I was sort of being facetious, but at least I was able to make my point. ;)

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.

OK, sounds good to me. :)
For the life of me, I can't figure out why they stopped making the Lightning...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Here in lies the key to the Mustangs phenomenal success, the largest most successful "after market parts" industry ever for any car period.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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

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.
--
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:

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 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.

I also give Ford tremendous credit for producing the Cobra from 2003 on up. Those cars are no-holds-barred ass 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.

Amen, brother!

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? ;)

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.

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


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 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.

Cobras certainly are kick-ass 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.

Guess we'll have to wait and see... ;)

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.

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

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.
--
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:

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. ;)

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.

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.

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.
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.