Hemi Challenger

"Frank ess" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> John C. wrote:
>> "BradandBrooks" > wrote in message
>> news:70pLi.256095$fJ5.199591@pd7urf1no...
>>>
>>> "John C." > wrote in message
>>> news:vRjLi.320$R%1.115@trndny06...
>>>>
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> oups.com...
>>>>
>>>> <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)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> You sound a little bitter.
>>>
>>
>> Hehe, I suppose I do.
>>
>> Nah,... just a little disappointed. I'll live.
>> <shrug> The market is what it is.
>>
>> I can't blame the dealers. As long as folks will pay the premium,
>> might as well maximize profits.
>
> I suppose it costs a dealer less to let a GT500 sit and age on his lot
> than he would lose by selling it at a reasonable markup. Someone will come
> along with more dollars than sense and drive it away at some ridiculous
> price, happy as a clam. One Ford store near me has a
> black-with-dark-gray-stripes version (I like it a lot) with one of those
> +$22,000 stickers on it. Been there since May. That's a long time for any
> kind of product to be on the shelf. When do you suppose the "best-by" date
> might be? Sooner or later the pool of +dollars -sense buyers must run dry?


The "best-by" date on these GT500's will be decades rather than months or
years. 1968 Shelby GT500's are going for (pushing 1/4 million dollars per
copy) more and more every year...



>
> --
> Frank ess

"My Name Is Nobody" > wrote in message
news:dVGLi.1383$Ju2.645@trndny01...
>
> "John C." > wrote in message
> news:vRjLi.320$R%1.115@trndny06...
> >
> > > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> >
> > <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.
> >
>
> 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)

On Sep 29, 11:18 pm, Michael Johnson > 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.

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

Michael Johnson > wrote in
:

> WindsorFox wrote:
>> clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:
>>> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 12:36:15 -0500, WindsorFox
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Sep 26, 11:07 pm, "Les Benn" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> lol a measly 5.4L Ford engine (probably out of a lawnboy mower)
>>>>> Oh, you're just being a slanderous *******.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>
> 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.

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
> 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.

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.

Joe wrote:
> Michael Johnson > wrote in
> :
>
>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>> clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 12:36:15 -0500, WindsorFox
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sep 26, 11:07 pm, "Les Benn" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> lol a measly 5.4L Ford engine (probably out of a lawnboy mower)
>>>>>> Oh, you're just being a slanderous *******.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>> 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.
>> 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.
>
> 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.

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
>> 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.
>
> 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
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.

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.

wrote:
> On Sep 29, 11:18 pm, Michael Johnson > 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.
>
> 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
>
>

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 22:08:45 -0400, Michael Johnson >
wrote:

>Joe wrote:
>> Michael Johnson > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>> clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 12:36:15 -0500, WindsorFox
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sep 26, 11:07 pm, "Les Benn" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> lol a measly 5.4L Ford engine (probably out of a lawnboy mower)
>>>>>>> Oh, you're just being a slanderous *******.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>
>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
>>> 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.
>>
>> 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
>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.

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

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 22:08:45 -0400, Michael Johnson >
> wrote:
>
>> Joe wrote:
>>> Michael Johnson > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>>> clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 12:36:15 -0500, WindsorFox
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sep 26, 11:07 pm, "Les Benn" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> lol a measly 5.4L Ford engine (probably out of a lawnboy mower)
>>>>>>>> Oh, you're just being a slanderous *******.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>> 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.
>>>> 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.
>>> 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.
>> 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
>>>> 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.
>>> 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
>> 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.
>
> 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.

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.

Michael Johnson > wrote in
:

> Joe wrote:
>> Michael Johnson > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>> clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 12:36:15 -0500, WindsorFox
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sep 26, 11:07 pm, "Les Benn" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> lol a measly 5.4L Ford engine (probably out of a lawnboy mower)
>>>>>>> Oh, you're just being a slanderous *******.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>
> 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.

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.
>>> 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.
>>
>> 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
> 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.

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.

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.


Michael Johnson > wrote in
:

> 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.
>
> wrote:
>> On Sep 29, 11:18 pm, Michael Johnson > 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.
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>