Hemi Challenger

wrote:
> 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.

I wasn't talking about the N/A Cobra engines. My comparisons are
between today's Viper and Mustang engines. Ford builds more headroom
into their modular V-8s. Can a Viper engine handle a 50-60% increase in
power output without removing the valve covers or oil pan? I know the
Mustang's OHC engine can.

wrote:
> 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.

HP/liter means something when talking about an engine's power production
efficiency. A Viper engine weighs in at about 650 lbs. and a Z06 at
about 460 lbs. The 4.6L weighs in at around 440 lbs. The Ford Triton
V-10 weighs in at 635 lbs. fully dressed. I will give you that the
external size of OHC engines are greater than OHV engines. The weight
looks to be nearly equal.

On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 22:30:32 -0400, Michael Johnson >
wrote:


>
>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.

It wasn't a Ford engine, though. It was a Yamaha.
And the Duratec V6 isn't a "Ford" engine either. Yes, they build it,
but the block is a Porsche design, and the heads are Cosworth. ANd it
is a royal pain to work on, and DOES require more work than lower
output pushrod engines.
>


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

On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 23:20:55 -0400, Michael Johnson >
wrote:

>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.


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

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

On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 23:27:26 -0400, Michael Johnson >
wrote:

wrote:
>> 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.
>
>I wasn't talking about the N/A Cobra engines. My comparisons are
>between today's Viper and Mustang engines. Ford builds more headroom
>into their modular V-8s. Can a Viper engine handle a 50-60% increase in
>power output without removing the valve covers or oil pan? I know the
>Mustang's OHC engine can.

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

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

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 22:30:32 -0400, Michael Johnson >
> wrote:
>
>
>> 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.
>
> It wasn't a Ford engine, though. It was a Yamaha.
> And the Duratec V6 isn't a "Ford" engine either. Yes, they build it,
> but the block is a Porsche design, and the heads are Cosworth. ANd it
> is a royal pain to work on, and DOES require more work than lower
> output pushrod engines.

I know the SHO V-6 is a Yamaha engine but we are really comparing OHC to
OHV for discussion purposes of hp/liter output and basic design
superiority. BTW, removing a cam from an OHV engine isn't a piece of
cake either as is the lifters. Been there and done that. I do think
OHC engines have more packaging issues than OHV due to their increased size.

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 23:20:55 -0400, Michael Johnson >
> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>
> And NONE of this has anything to do with where the camshafts are
> located.

Agreed. It's not uncommon for these type of threads to spin off on a
tangent. Hell, this thread started out talking about the new Challenger
and look where we are now.

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 23:27:26 -0400, Michael Johnson >
> wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>> 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.
>> I wasn't talking about the N/A Cobra engines. My comparisons are
>> between today's Viper and Mustang engines. Ford builds more headroom
>> into their modular V-8s. Can a Viper engine handle a 50-60% increase in
>> power output without removing the valve covers or oil pan? I know the
>> Mustang's OHC engine can.
>
> The "blower" mustang starts with lower CR out of the box than the non
> blower engine.

I'm not even talking about the blown 4.6L from the factory. The Mustang
GT engine can take 9 psi with little risk if the tune is right. Where
the Viper and Z06 engines are pushed closer to their limits from the
factory the 4.6L engine in the Mustang is not and it still makes
hp/liter numbers on par with the other two engines. If Ford pushed the
4.6L as far as the Viper and Z06 they would pass those motors in
hp/liter output, IMO. I know the after market tuners are getting 30-40
more rwhp from them with tuning alone while maintaining reliability and
meeting emissions requirements. Imagine what Ford could do with tuning
the 4.6L in the Mustang if they had the motivation.

The whole point of the discussion here is that, IMO, OHC engines have
inherent design advantages over OHV engines. The fact that Ford's OHC
4.6L in the Mustang is matching the Viper and Z06 hp/liter numbers and
still has enough headroom to handle 9 psi of boost shows the superiority
of the OHC design, IMO. Ford could easily place four valve heads with
VVT and raise the redline to 7,500 rpm (the OHC design makes high
redlines easier to achieve) and get 400+ hp from their 4.6L engine.
This would be more hp than the LS2 using 1.4 liters less engine
displacement.

trainfan1 > wrote in
et:

> 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

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

Michael Johnson > wrote in
:

> clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:
>> On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 23:27:26 -0400, Michael Johnson >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>> I wasn't talking about the N/A Cobra engines. My comparisons are
>>> between today's Viper and Mustang engines. Ford builds more
>>> headroom into their modular V-8s. Can a Viper engine handle a
>>> 50-60% increase in power output without removing the valve covers or
>>> oil pan? I know the Mustang's OHC engine can.
>>
>> The "blower" mustang starts with lower CR out of the box than the non
>> blower engine.
>
> I'm not even talking about the blown 4.6L from the factory. The
> Mustang GT engine can take 9 psi with little risk if the tune is
> right. Where the Viper and Z06 engines are pushed closer to their
> limits from the factory the 4.6L engine in the Mustang is not and it
> still makes hp/liter numbers on par with the other two engines.

You can also read this as Chevy and Dodge engineering their motors to be
ready to roll right off the showroom floor, whereas Ford is leaving it
up to the customer to spend aftermarket dollars to bring the engine up
to par.

> If
> Ford pushed the 4.6L as far as the Viper and Z06 they would pass those
> motors in hp/liter output, IMO.

I know you've already claimed that Ford doesn't have to, but have we
heard of _any_ development to do so, especially in light of what's
coming down the line? We've heard that the new Corvette motor is a
given, but what's up with the Boss/Hurricane? Rumors abound...

> I know the after market tuners are
> getting 30-40 more rwhp from them with tuning alone while maintaining
> reliability and meeting emissions requirements. Imagine what Ford
> could do with tuning the 4.6L in the Mustang if they had the
> motivation.

That's the problem. We have to imagine.

> The whole point of the discussion here is that, IMO, OHC engines have
> inherent design advantages over OHV engines.

I might say that the whole point is to discuss the
advantages/disadvantages. I don't think it's a given that OHC motors
have it over OHVs.

> The fact that Ford's OHC
> 4.6L in the Mustang is matching the Viper and Z06 hp/liter numbers and
> still has enough headroom to handle 9 psi of boost shows the
> superiority of the OHC design, IMO.

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

> Ford could easily place four
> valve heads with VVT and raise the redline to 7,500 rpm (the OHC
> design makes high redlines easier to achieve) and get 400+ hp from
> their 4.6L engine. This would be more hp than the LS2 using 1.4 liters
> less engine displacement.

You can say similar things for every maker. Every engine being made
today could benefit from more research, engineering, and testing.
However, doing so would perpetuate the discussion forever, as it's all
conjecture. Let's talk about what you can buy right out of the showroom
and drive home.