Re: Hemi Challenger

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.

Reply to
Michael Johnson
Loading thread data ...

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.

Reply to
Michael Johnson

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.
Reply to
Michael Johnson

trainfan1 wrote in news:BLqdnWQNXdAqBJzanZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@usadatanet.net:

That's a V10. I should've specified V8s...

Reply to
Joe

Michael Johnson wrote in news:WfydnTnA5s_o7Z_anZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com:

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. ;)

Reply to
Joe

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.

Reply to
Michael Johnson

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...

Reply to
My Name Is Nobody

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...

Reply to
My Name Is Nobody

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

Reply to
WindsorFox

Michael Johnson wrote in news:jOWdncHL673KC5_anZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com:

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...

Reply to
Joe

Here in lies the key to the Mustangs phenomenal success, the largest most successful "after market parts" industry ever for any car period.

Reply to
My Name Is Nobody

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.

Reply to
Michael Johnson

"My Name Is Nobody" wrote in news:aCzMi.4500$Hb2.4135@trndny07:

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.

Reply to
Joe

Michael Johnson wrote in news:ytKdnQoL1bhuW5_anZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com:

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.

Reply to
Joe

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

Reply to
clare at snyder.on.ca

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!!!

Reply to
clare at snyder.on.ca

Yes, designed and built by Chrysler in their own facility. Just happens to be in Mexico. However, it is NOT really a "HEMI".

Yes in as far as GM "OWNS" Isuzu

No, the Ford PowerStroke engine is an International engine. Built for 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?

At least. And it stood up quite well to the "abuse" many drivers handed it.

Reply to
clare at snyder.on.ca

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

Reply to
My Name Is Nobody

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.

Reply to
clare at snyder.on.ca

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.

Reply to
Michael Johnson

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.