Hemi Challenger

Joe wrote:
> 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.

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.

> 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.

Joe wrote:
> 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.

The two valve engines make for good low end torque numbers. They can't
hang with the high end breathing and high rpm redline potential of an
OHC engine without some very expensive machining and/or compromises in
low end performance. Matching VVT with a multi-valve OHC engine makes
for some very potent potential regarding hp/torque across the entire rpm
range to well over 7,000 rpm. IMO, Ford is getting hp from their
modular motors very easily where GM and Chrysler can only get high hp
numbers from their OHV engines by increasing displacement. Making hp
through sheer displacement isn't that difficult or impressive, IMO.
Saying that, don't forget I plan to put a 427W in the old Mustang.

>>>> 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.

This is where I have to disagree. I think the OHC engines are less
complex and are more reliable due to their design. Look at the
complexity of the VVT on the OHV engines. If they ever get multi-valve
technology then they will be even more complex. Whether these OHV
engines with VVT are durable remains to be seen. We know for certain
VVT is durable on OHC motors. One of the major problems for any OHV
engine is the frailty of push rods, lifters and rocker arms. This is a
lot of moving mass to account for, especially in the upper rpm range.
The OHC engines don't have this issue. Although they may be percieved
as more complex I think they are actually simpler. We perceive them as
complex because we think it is new technology. It really isn't. All
you have to do is look at the track record of the OHC engines in the
cars that use them. It is stellar. The 4.6L is proving to be even
more durable than the 302 and that is saying something.

> 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.

I agree. The one big advantage I see with OHV engines is their smaller
size. Take that away and, IMO, there isn't much of a reason for their
existence in today's automobile world.

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 23:48:28 -0400, Michael Johnson >
wrote:

>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.


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

<clare at snyder.on.ca> wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 23:48:28 -0400, Michael Johnson >
> wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>
> 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!!!!!


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?

My Name Is Nobody wrote:
> <clare at snyder.on.ca> wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 23:48:28 -0400, Michael Johnson >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> 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!!!!!
>
>
> 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?

Thanks. You saved me a lot of typing.

Michael Johnson > wrote in
:

> Joe wrote:
>> 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.
>
> The two valve engines make for good low end torque numbers. They
> can't hang with the high end breathing and high rpm redline potential
> of an OHC engine without some very expensive machining and/or
> compromises in low end performance. Matching VVT with a multi-valve
> OHC engine makes for some very potent potential regarding hp/torque
> across the entire rpm range to well over 7,000 rpm. IMO, Ford is
> getting hp from their modular motors very easily where GM and Chrysler
> can only get high hp numbers from their OHV engines by increasing
> displacement. Making hp through sheer displacement isn't that
> difficult or impressive, IMO. Saying that, don't forget I plan to put
> a 427W in the old Mustang.

There's hope yet!

>>>>> 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.
>
> This is where I have to disagree. I think the OHC engines are less
> complex and are more reliable due to their design. Look at the
> complexity of the VVT on the OHV engines. If they ever get
> multi-valve technology then they will be even more complex. Whether
> these OHV engines with VVT are durable remains to be seen. We know
> for certain VVT is durable on OHC motors. One of the major problems
> for any OHV engine is the frailty of push rods, lifters and rocker
> arms. This is a lot of moving mass to account for, especially in the
> upper rpm range. The OHC engines don't have this issue. Although they
> may be percieved as more complex I think they are actually simpler.
> We perceive them as complex because we think it is new technology. It
> really isn't. All you have to do is look at the track record of the
> OHC engines in the cars that use them. It is stellar. The 4.6L is
> proving to be even more durable than the 302 and that is saying
> something.

Michael, in a warped kind of way way you are making my point by going
with the 427 in your LX.

>> 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.
>
> I agree. The one big advantage I see with OHV engines is their
> smaller size. Take that away and, IMO, there isn't much of a reason
> for their existence in today's automobile world.

Then why are you planning on that 427???

Joe wrote:
> Michael Johnson > wrote in
> :
>
>> Joe wrote:
>>> 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.
>> The two valve engines make for good low end torque numbers. They
>> can't hang with the high end breathing and high rpm redline potential
>> of an OHC engine without some very expensive machining and/or
>> compromises in low end performance. Matching VVT with a multi-valve
>> OHC engine makes for some very potent potential regarding hp/torque
>> across the entire rpm range to well over 7,000 rpm. IMO, Ford is
>> getting hp from their modular motors very easily where GM and Chrysler
>> can only get high hp numbers from their OHV engines by increasing
>> displacement. Making hp through sheer displacement isn't that
>> difficult or impressive, IMO. Saying that, don't forget I plan to put
>> a 427W in the old Mustang.
>
> There's hope yet!
>
>>>>>> 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.
>> This is where I have to disagree. I think the OHC engines are less
>> complex and are more reliable due to their design. Look at the
>> complexity of the VVT on the OHV engines. If they ever get
>> multi-valve technology then they will be even more complex. Whether
>> these OHV engines with VVT are durable remains to be seen. We know
>> for certain VVT is durable on OHC motors. One of the major problems
>> for any OHV engine is the frailty of push rods, lifters and rocker
>> arms. This is a lot of moving mass to account for, especially in the
>> upper rpm range. The OHC engines don't have this issue. Although they
>> may be percieved as more complex I think they are actually simpler.
>> We perceive them as complex because we think it is new technology. It
>> really isn't. All you have to do is look at the track record of the
>> OHC engines in the cars that use them. It is stellar. The 4.6L is
>> proving to be even more durable than the 302 and that is saying
>> something.
>
> Michael, in a warped kind of way way you are making my point by going
> with the 427 in your LX.
>
>>> 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.
>> I agree. The one big advantage I see with OHV engines is their
>> smaller size. Take that away and, IMO, there isn't much of a reason
>> for their existence in today's automobile world.
>
> Then why are you planning on that 427???

If I had my druthers I would LOVE to stuff an '03/'04 Cobra motor with a
Kenne Bell blower on top into the engine bay. The 427W is easier and
less expensive but, make no mistake, the Cobra motor would bitch slap it
with ease.

Michael Johnson > wrote in
:

> Joe wrote:
>> 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.
>
> 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.

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

> Even comparing stock to stock the hp/liter
> numbers between them are very close.

See below.

> 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.

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.

> I chalk much of this up to the OHC design of the
> modular motor.

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

> 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.

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

> 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.

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...

> 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.

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.

Michael Johnson > wrote in
:

> Joe wrote:
>> Michael Johnson > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Joe wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>> The two valve engines make for good low end torque numbers. They
>>> can't hang with the high end breathing and high rpm redline
potential
>>> of an OHC engine without some very expensive machining and/or
>>> compromises in low end performance. Matching VVT with a multi-valve
>>> OHC engine makes for some very potent potential regarding hp/torque
>>> across the entire rpm range to well over 7,000 rpm. IMO, Ford is
>>> getting hp from their modular motors very easily where GM and
Chrysler
>>> can only get high hp numbers from their OHV engines by increasing
>>> displacement. Making hp through sheer displacement isn't that
>>> difficult or impressive, IMO. Saying that, don't forget I plan to
put
>>> a 427W in the old Mustang.
>>
>> There's hope yet!
>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>> This is where I have to disagree. I think the OHC engines are less
>>> complex and are more reliable due to their design. Look at the
>>> complexity of the VVT on the OHV engines. If they ever get
>>> multi-valve technology then they will be even more complex. Whether
>>> these OHV engines with VVT are durable remains to be seen. We know
>>> for certain VVT is durable on OHC motors. One of the major problems
>>> for any OHV engine is the frailty of push rods, lifters and rocker
>>> arms. This is a lot of moving mass to account for, especially in
the
>>> upper rpm range. The OHC engines don't have this issue. Although
they
>>> may be percieved as more complex I think they are actually simpler.
>>> We perceive them as complex because we think it is new technology.
It
>>> really isn't. All you have to do is look at the track record of the
>>> OHC engines in the cars that use them. It is stellar. The 4.6L is
>>> proving to be even more durable than the 302 and that is saying
>>> something.
>>
>> Michael, in a warped kind of way way you are making my point by going
>> with the 427 in your LX.
>>
>>>> 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.
>>> I agree. The one big advantage I see with OHV engines is their
>>> smaller size. Take that away and, IMO, there isn't much of a reason
>>> for their existence in today's automobile world.
>>
>> Then why are you planning on that 427???
>
> If I had my druthers I would LOVE to stuff an '03/'04 Cobra motor with
a
> Kenne Bell blower on top into the engine bay. The 427W is easier and
> less expensive but, make no mistake, the Cobra motor would bitch slap
it
> with ease.

Well, of course it would! And that brings us back to the SN65.
Remember that thing? Awesome...

Joe wrote:

>
> 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.

Ford 6.8L SOHC 3V(2005 & up)
HP - 362 @ 4750 RPM
TQ - 457 @ 3250 RPM

Rob