Hemi Challenger

On Sep 30, 9:08 pm, Michael Johnson > wrote:
> Joe wrote:

> > 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.

Mike,

HP/liter means absolutely nothing. There isn't any tax for using
extra displacement. Weight and external size of the motor is what's
important.

Patrick

On Sep 30, 9:17 pm, Michael Johnson > wrote:
> 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,

So take away their strong point to make your point? How about remove
the 4.6s OHVs and it's just a small displacement motor.

> 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.

Yes, a $4K upgrade can do wonderful things.

Patrick

On Sep 30, 10:48 pm, Michael Johnson > wrote:
> clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:

> 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.

Much like many of the older [high-compression] 4.6 Cobras did after
their owners added blowers.

Again, your comparisons are not very good.

Patrick

>> 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.

The SRT10 viper and the normally aspirated 'stang both had 9.6:1 CR
stock. In 2007 the standart viper had 9.2:1. In 2008 the SRT10 goes to
10.2:1

The 2008 SRT10 8.4 liter Viper puts out 600 HP normally aspirated for
74.5 HP per liter at 6250 RPM. It puts out 560 ft lb of torque, or
almost 67 ft lbs per liter.

If you boosted this engine to 7psi ((same as Stang) you would see
almost 100 HP per liter, and torque in the 90 ft lb per liter range,
with CR down around 8.5:1



The GT500 supercharged 5.7engine has 8.4:1 native compression ratio .
It makes 500 hp at 6000 RPM. That's almost 88 HP per liter. It puts
out 480 ft lbs on 150% of atmospheric pressure at the intake.
That/s just over 84 ft lbs per liter.

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

On Oct 1, 8:03 am, Michael Johnson > wrote:

> 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.

Not really. I was going to post about how many modified LS powered GM
cars there are in my neck of the woods... errr beach. In fact I
talked with one of the guys just this morning. He has an '02 Trans Am
with Z06 heads, cam and exhaust. I don't know what else he's done,
but there's no blower or juice and he's running low 11s at around
120.

> 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.

GM has been under-rating since the LS1 came out.

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.

Ford's "truck engine" [family] powered their flagship Ford GT.

Chrysler's flagship engine also powered a pickup. The SRT-10.

But, again, none of this matters because HP/liter doesn't matter.

Patrick

Joe wrote:
> 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.

I don't think anyone today is over stating hp numbers. If anything they
are slightly under rating them. For Chevy to squeeze another 100 hp
from their OHV Vette motor they had to increase the displacement. That
tells me they are close to maxing out the engine while keeping emissions
viable and reliable. Otherwise they would keep the displacement at 6
liters for the Z06.

>> 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.

Ford isn't producing a high performance N/A 5.4L engine at the moment.
They did several years ago and put it into the Cobra R. It made an
under rated 385 hp and in reality probably made close to 400 hp with 5.4
liters of displacement. Ford produced this engine seven years ago and
Chevy needs 6 liters to hit 400 hp with their base Vette engine. The
current GT500 (and Ford GT) engine is basically a Cobra R engine with a
blower and stronger internals.

The Mustang's 4.6L is Ford's only N/A high performance engine at the
moment. The after market tuners are getting another 30-40 hp from them
with tuning tweaks and these cars still pass all the emissions tests.
Ford could do the same from the factory but don't need to because the
car has no immediate competition. Getting 340 hp from 4.6 liters is
better hp/liter numbers than the Z06 of Viper engines. Ford could
easily give the 4.6L another 1000 rpm up top and push it to 400 hp, IMO.
Heck, nearly 17-18 years ago Ford was offering an OHC SHO engine in
the Taurus that made better hp/liter numbers than today's Z06 or Viper
OHV engines.

>> I 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 never said OHV engines aren't reliable.

>> 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...

With 5.0L displacement they can do it easily. With 4.6L displacement it
will take some new design features like maybe four valves per cylinder
and a 7,000+ redline.

>> 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.

The only reason Ford doesn't have one is because they refuse to build it
and/or have no use for it at present. They produced a 385-400 hp 5.4L
N/A OHC engine for the Cobra R so we know what they can do it even with
seven year old engine technology. Remember the ZR1 Corvette? It had a
DOHC 350 ci V-8 that made 405 hp from 5.7 liters back in the early
1990s. The OHV engine is just catching it in power production. Think
what hp levels they would see if they put all that R&D into the ZR1
engine. Chevy should have kept the ZR1 and ditched the OHV engines.
That engine, IMO, should have evolved into the base engine for the Corvette.

Joe wrote:
> 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...

That engine would make a Yugo sweet.

wrote:
> On Oct 1, 8:03 am, Michael Johnson > wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Not really. I was going to post about how many modified LS powered GM
> cars there are in my neck of the woods... errr beach. In fact I
> talked with one of the guys just this morning. He has an '02 Trans Am
> with Z06 heads, cam and exhaust. I don't know what else he's done,
> but there's no blower or juice and he's running low 11s at around
> 120.

If there is more power left in the base Corvette engine then why did
Chevy have to raise the displacement of the Z06 engine to 7 liters to
get 505 hp?

>> I 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.
>
> GM has been under-rating since the LS1 came out.

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

> 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.
>
> Ford's "truck engine" [family] powered their flagship Ford GT.
>
> Chrysler's flagship engine also powered a pickup. The SRT-10.
>
> But, again, none of this matters because HP/liter doesn't matter.

Maybe not for ETs or lap times but it does give an idea of an engine's
hp efficiency and effectiveness of its design regard power production.

wrote:
> On Sep 30, 9:17 pm, Michael Johnson > wrote:
>> 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,
>
> So take away their strong point to make your point? How about remove
> the 4.6s OHVs and it's just a small displacement motor.

My point is the OHC engines have other ways of making hp than just
increasing displacement. For instance improved airflow from a
multi-valve head in conjunction with high rpm capability can produce
very impressive hp numbers. Sure you can do the same with an OHV engine
but low end power suffers and the cost of machining the engine to tight
tolerances is cost prohibitive for a mass produced engine. GM and
Chrysler have gone the displacement route to overcome the inherent
weaknesses of the OHV design. The OHC engines don't have these
weaknesses and this, IMO, make them a superior design.

>> 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.
>
> Yes, a $4K upgrade can do wonderful things.

It's not the $4k. It's the blower. I just love forced induction and
don't know why it isn't used more often. There's absolutely nothing
wrong with 150+ hp/liter engines. They are light, small and run like hell.

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:
>>> Bingo, that is the point. The stock 4.6 is good for a ver reliable and
>>> long lived 450 horsepower on all stock internals, with no ill effects. That
>>> is 150 horsepower (+50%) increase, without changing anything in the bottom
>>> end or the heads.
>>> Ford sees a 50% horsepower increase on their OHC modular engines with a
>>> simple bolt on blower, on SOCK internals, while the Corvette and Viper push
>>> rod offerings are maxed out and need all new internals to up their
>>> horsepower numbers from the maxed out factory figures...
>>>
>>> Come on now clare, this is not rocket science...
>>>
>>> Go ahead and get your apples out and tell us just how this reflects well on
>>> the Viper or the Vet's "technology" advantages?
>> Thanks. You saved me a lot of typing.
>
> The SRT10 viper and the normally aspirated 'stang both had 9.6:1 CR
> stock. In 2007 the standart viper had 9.2:1. In 2008 the SRT10 goes to
> 10.2:1
>
> The 2008 SRT10 8.4 liter Viper puts out 600 HP normally aspirated for
> 74.5 HP per liter at 6250 RPM. It puts out 560 ft lb of torque, or
> almost 67 ft lbs per liter.
>
> If you boosted this engine to 7psi ((same as Stang) you would see
> almost 100 HP per liter, and torque in the 90 ft lb per liter range,
> with CR down around 8.5:1

Can the Viper engine take 7 psi of boost with no internal engine
modifications? The Mustang's 4.6L can take 9 psi with no modifications.

> The GT500 supercharged 5.7engine has 8.4:1 native compression ratio .
> It makes 500 hp at 6000 RPM. That's almost 88 HP per liter. It puts
> out 480 ft lbs on 150% of atmospheric pressure at the intake.
> That/s just over 84 ft lbs per liter.

The GT500's engine isn't even breaking a sweat at 500 hp. Ford slapped
an inefficient Roots blower on it and detuned it. A Kenne Bell twin
screw kit on a GT500 will make nearly 700 rwhp on pump gas. That
equates to 150 hp/liter and you can fill up the tank at Sunoco. This is
also done without removing the valve covers or oil pan from the engine.