Hemi Challenger

Joe wrote:
> 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 read something about the Bullet engine the other day but it was mostly
guessing. I would imagine that any Mustang variant between the GT500
and GT with have to be N/A or it will cut into GT500 sales. My guess is
the Bullet will be a beter tuned GT engine that cranks out around 340
hp. I think Ford looks at the Boss label as a premium one and will do
something special for the engine like giving it a high redline, four
valves and/or raising the displacement to five liters. I think it will
also be priced accordingly (aka too high). Then again, I could be full
of **** too.

>> 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.

Ford has no competition against the Mustang so they really don't have to
do squat. Funny thing is that without competition they are offering us
a very good car. IMO, they are giving us the best lineup of Mustangs
ever. I include the 1960s Mustangs in that statement.

>> 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.

I don't think OHC engines are an order of magnitude better. IMO, they
allow more tools at the engineer's disposal to make power reliably and
with less manufacturing cost. The OHC engines offer multi-valve heads,
VVT, multiple intake runners and very high rpm capability to name a few.
They can be designed to match an OHV engine and then some. Just look
at the newer OHV engines, they are taking design elements (like VVT)
that have existed in OHC engines for almost a decade or more.

The other thing that I think is going to ultimately make OHV engines hit
a wall is displacement. From what I see in the Vette and Viper they
have to have cubic inches to get the power levels those cars need. How
far can they go with this design philosophy? Even in the hay days of
the 1960s there were displacement limits. The Z06 is at 427 cubic
inches already with and engine that is stroked to the moon and back.

Basically, an engine is an air pump. The more air you move the more
power you make. The OHC design allows more flexibility to move the air
more efficiently. Not and order of magnitude more efficiently but a
measurable amount.

>> 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".

What you call "under engineered" I call untapped potential for making
more power (i.e. headroom). I think Ford intentionally does this to
give the Mustang buyer the ability to tweak his car to get more
performance for cheap. I think Ford chiseled this in the Mustang's list
of commandments when they conceived it back in the 1960s.

>> 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.

Well then we have to through the engine in the GT500 into the mix. That
starts a whole different discussion between forced induction and N/A.
IMO, that is a short argument because forced induction is the clear
winner in any hp/liter discussion.

"Joe" > wrote in message
...
> 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...

Why? Why not specify over head cam while you are at it?
Then you could say Chevy and Chrysler don't have a naturally aspirated OHC
engine that makes over 250 horsepower...
Hum this is getting silly..

BTW:
The Ford 6.8 naturally aspirated OHC engine is a truck engine, and makes
comparable power to the other's OHV performance car engines...

<clare at snyder.on.ca> wrote in message
...
> 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.

So is the so called "Hemi" built in Mexico actually a Chrysler engine?
Is the Isuzu built diesel actually a Chevy Duramax engine?
Is the International diesel actually a Ford Power Stroke engine?

In this day and age that is a really silly distinction. Almost all cars
have outsourced parts...
The Ford SHO KICKED ASS, and was about 15-20 years ahead of it's time...

> 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
>

My Name Is Nobody wrote:
> <clare at snyder.on.ca> wrote in message
> ...
>> 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.
>
> So is the so called "Hemi" built in Mexico actually a Chrysler engine?
> Is the Isuzu built diesel actually a Chevy Duramax engine?
> Is the International diesel actually a Ford Power Stroke engine?
>
> In this day and age that is a really silly distinction. Almost all cars
> have outsourced parts...
> The Ford SHO KICKED ASS, and was about 15-20 years ahead of it's time...
>


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

--
"Wow, I want a billion Dollars and a pet monkey!" - Dale Jarrett

"Paul's vocabulary is rather large, but
most of the words have no meaning in English" - Joe Canuck

"Too bad it wasn't "personality theft"...you'd be immune." - Herb Tarlek

Michael Johnson > wrote in
:

> Joe wrote:
>> 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 read something about the Bullet engine the other day but it was
> mostly guessing. I would imagine that any Mustang variant between the
> GT500 and GT with have to be N/A or it will cut into GT500 sales. My
> guess is the Bullet will be a beter tuned GT engine that cranks out
> around 340 hp. I think Ford looks at the Boss label as a premium one
> and will do something special for the engine like giving it a high
> redline, four valves and/or raising the displacement to five liters.
> I think it will also be priced accordingly (aka too high). Then
> again, I could be full of **** too.

Hey, most of us are (some more than others though). At any rate, if
Ford does come out with Bullet/Boss/Hurricane engines, what the hell
will they put them in?? The Mustang can't go much higher in price,
which would be a must for those engines.

>>> 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.
>
> Ford has no competition against the Mustang so they really don't have
> to do squat.

Not yet, at least. But that's all part of what we're talking about
here.

> Funny thing is that without competition they are
> offering us a very good car. IMO, they are giving us the best lineup
> of Mustangs ever. I include the 1960s Mustangs in that statement.

Absolutely! I think the Mustang is one of the best deals out there now,
even with "only" 300hp.

>>> 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.
>
> I don't think OHC engines are an order of magnitude better. IMO, they
> allow more tools at the engineer's disposal to make power reliably and
> with less manufacturing cost. The OHC engines offer multi-valve
> heads, VVT, multiple intake runners and very high rpm capability to
> name a few.
> They can be designed to match an OHV engine and then some. Just
> look
> at the newer OHV engines, they are taking design elements (like VVT)
> that have existed in OHC engines for almost a decade or more.

Totally agreed. Like Patrick used to say (poorly paraphrased), it's a
great time to have a driver's license.

> The other thing that I think is going to ultimately make OHV engines
> hit a wall is displacement. From what I see in the Vette and Viper
> they have to have cubic inches to get the power levels those cars
> need. How far can they go with this design philosophy? Even in the
> hay days of the 1960s there were displacement limits. The Z06 is at
> 427 cubic inches already with and engine that is stroked to the moon
> and back.

They'll either go to V10s or big blocks. LOL!

> Basically, an engine is an air pump. The more air you move the more
> power you make. The OHC design allows more flexibility to move the
> air more efficiently. Not and order of magnitude more efficiently but
> a measurable amount.
>
>>> 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".
>
> What you call "under engineered" I call untapped potential for making
> more power (i.e. headroom).

I was sort of being facetious, but at least I was able to make my point.


> I think Ford intentionally does this to
> give the Mustang buyer the ability to tweak his car to get more
> performance for cheap. I think Ford chiseled this in the Mustang's
> list of commandments when they conceived it back in the 1960s.

Great thought, but I don't think Ford goes that far. I think they
figure out how to make money and that's about it.

>>> 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.
>
> Well then we have to through the engine in the GT500 into the mix.
> That starts a whole different discussion between forced induction and
> N/A. IMO, that is a short argument because forced induction is the
> clear winner in any hp/liter discussion.

OK, sounds good to me.

For the life of me, I can't figure out why they stopped making the
Lightning...

"Joe" > wrote in message
...
> Michael Johnson > wrote in
> :



>>>> 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".
>>
>> What you call "under engineered" I call untapped potential for making
>> more power (i.e. headroom).
>
> I was sort of being facetious, but at least I was able to make my point.
>
>
>> I think Ford intentionally does this to
>> give the Mustang buyer the ability to tweak his car to get more
>> performance for cheap. I think Ford chiseled this in the Mustang's
>> list of commandments when they conceived it back in the 1960s.
>

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

Joe wrote:
> Michael Johnson > wrote in
> :
>
>> Joe wrote:
>>><snip>
>>> 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 read something about the Bullet engine the other day but it was
>> mostly guessing. I would imagine that any Mustang variant between the
>> GT500 and GT with have to be N/A or it will cut into GT500 sales. My
>> guess is the Bullet will be a beter tuned GT engine that cranks out
>> around 340 hp. I think Ford looks at the Boss label as a premium one
>> and will do something special for the engine like giving it a high
>> redline, four valves and/or raising the displacement to five liters.
>> I think it will also be priced accordingly (aka too high). Then
>> again, I could be full of **** too.
>
> Hey, most of us are (some more than others though). At any rate, if
> Ford does come out with Bullet/Boss/Hurricane engines, what the hell
> will they put them in?? The Mustang can't go much higher in price,
> which would be a must for those engines.

Right now I think Ford is in survival mode and I doubt we will see those
engines any time soon. Ford doesn't lack good engines now and, IMO,
doesn't need the added financial burden of delivering them. Besides,
you make a good point, They have nothing to put them in at the moment.

>>>> I 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.
>> Ford has no competition against the Mustang so they really don't have
>> to do squat.
>
> Not yet, at least. But that's all part of what we're talking about
> here.

I still doubt the Camaro and Challenger will see the light of day. I
just don't think the bean counters are going to let them happen. Not
enough profit in them to matter in the company wide bottom line. Bean
counters don't care about image cars.

>> Funny thing is that without competition they are
>> offering us a very good car. IMO, they are giving us the best lineup
>> of Mustangs ever. I include the 1960s Mustangs in that statement.
>
> Absolutely! I think the Mustang is one of the best deals out there now,
> even with "only" 300hp.

I also give Ford tremendous credit for producing the Cobra from 2003 on
up. Those cars are no-holds-barred ass kickers. They are made in the
true spirit of the muscle/pony cars back at peak of the 1960s. No other
car maker has had the balls to deliver those kind of vehicles in recent
times.

>>>> 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.
>> I don't think OHC engines are an order of magnitude better. IMO, they
>> allow more tools at the engineer's disposal to make power reliably and
>> with less manufacturing cost. The OHC engines offer multi-valve
>> heads, VVT, multiple intake runners and very high rpm capability to
>> name a few.
>> They can be designed to match an OHV engine and then some. Just
>> look
>> at the newer OHV engines, they are taking design elements (like VVT)
>> that have existed in OHC engines for almost a decade or more.
>
> Totally agreed. Like Patrick used to say (poorly paraphrased), it's a
> great time to have a driver's license.

Amen, brother!

>> The other thing that I think is going to ultimately make OHV engines
>> hit a wall is displacement. From what I see in the Vette and Viper
>> they have to have cubic inches to get the power levels those cars
>> need. How far can they go with this design philosophy? Even in the
>> hay days of the 1960s there were displacement limits. The Z06 is at
>> 427 cubic inches already with and engine that is stroked to the moon
>> and back.
>
> They'll either go to V10s or big blocks. LOL!

Actually, I think they will go the OHC route first. Did you hear that
Chevy is bringing the ZR1 back? Wanna bet it has an OHC engine?

>> Basically, an engine is an air pump. The more air you move the more
>> power you make. The OHC design allows more flexibility to move the
>> air more efficiently. Not and order of magnitude more efficiently but
>> a measurable amount.
>>
>>>> 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".
>> What you call "under engineered" I call untapped potential for making
>> more power (i.e. headroom).
>
> I was sort of being facetious, but at least I was able to make my point.
>
>
>> I think Ford intentionally does this to
>> give the Mustang buyer the ability to tweak his car to get more
>> performance for cheap. I think Ford chiseled this in the Mustang's
>> list of commandments when they conceived it back in the 1960s.
>
> Great thought, but I don't think Ford goes that far. I think they
> figure out how to make money and that's about it.

IMO, the other reason they do this is to allow them to be beat on by
their drivers and still keep running past the warranty period.

>>>> 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.
>> Well then we have to through the engine in the GT500 into the mix.
>> That starts a whole different discussion between forced induction and
>> N/A. IMO, that is a short argument because forced induction is the
>> clear winner in any hp/liter discussion.
>
> OK, sounds good to me.
>
> For the life of me, I can't figure out why they stopped making the
> Lightning...

My guess is they didn't want to spend the money to R&D, and tool up, for
the new truck chassis. The bean counters probably said the cost wasn't
worth the profits. It looks like they killed the full time AWD,
supercharged Sport Trac too. That looked to be one beast of a vehicle
in the spirit of the old GM Typhoon and Cyclone.

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

>
> "Joe" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Michael Johnson > wrote in
>> :
>
>
>
>>>>> 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".
>>>
>>> What you call "under engineered" I call untapped potential for
>>> making more power (i.e. headroom).
>>
>> I was sort of being facetious, but at least I was able to make my
>> point.
>>
>>> I think Ford intentionally does this to
>>> give the Mustang buyer the ability to tweak his car to get more
>>> performance for cheap. I think Ford chiseled this in the Mustang's
>>> list of commandments when they conceived it back in the 1960s.
>>
>
> Here in lies the key to the Mustangs phenomenal success, the largest
> most successful "after market parts" industry ever for any car period.

If you take all the years it's been out collectively, that's a given.
However, if you go a year at a time, my money would probably be on Honda
aftermarket parts. I see a helluva a lot more ricers with aftermarket
stuff than Mustangs.

Michael Johnson > wrote in
:

> Joe wrote:
>> Michael Johnson > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Joe wrote:
>>>><snip>
>>>> 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 read something about the Bullet engine the other day but it was
>>> mostly guessing. I would imagine that any Mustang variant between
>>> the GT500 and GT with have to be N/A or it will cut into GT500
>>> sales. My guess is the Bullet will be a beter tuned GT engine that
>>> cranks out around 340 hp. I think Ford looks at the Boss label as a
>>> premium one and will do something special for the engine like giving
>>> it a high redline, four valves and/or raising the displacement to
>>> five liters. I think it will also be priced accordingly (aka too
>>> high). Then again, I could be full of **** too.
>>
>> Hey, most of us are (some more than others though). At any rate, if
>> Ford does come out with Bullet/Boss/Hurricane engines, what the hell
>> will they put them in?? The Mustang can't go much higher in price,
>> which would be a must for those engines.
>
> Right now I think Ford is in survival mode and I doubt we will see
> those engines any time soon. Ford doesn't lack good engines now and,
> IMO, doesn't need the added financial burden of delivering them.
> Besides, you make a good point, They have nothing to put them in at
> the moment.

So except for the Mustang (with a few engine variations), are you saying
that Ford is out of the performance picture for the time being?

>>>>> I 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.
>>> Ford has no competition against the Mustang so they really don't
>>> have to do squat.
>>
>> Not yet, at least. But that's all part of what we're talking about
>> here.
>
> I still doubt the Camaro and Challenger will see the light of day. I
> just don't think the bean counters are going to let them happen. Not
> enough profit in them to matter in the company wide bottom line. Bean
> counters don't care about image cars.

I think there's been enough publicity for those cars that if those
makers _don't_ put them out, people will be really ****ed off and you'll
see a bad ripple effect. I also think the bean counters realize that.
Dodge still has the Challenger on its web sites as "coming soon". If
Dodge makes the Challenger and Chevy doesn't make the Camaro, Chevy will
take a spanking for it.

>>> Funny thing is that without competition they are
>>> offering us a very good car. IMO, they are giving us the best
>>> lineup of Mustangs ever. I include the 1960s Mustangs in that
>>> statement.
>>
>> Absolutely! I think the Mustang is one of the best deals out there
>> now, even with "only" 300hp.
>
> I also give Ford tremendous credit for producing the Cobra from 2003
> on up. Those cars are no-holds-barred ass kickers. They are made in
> the true spirit of the muscle/pony cars back at peak of the 1960s. No
> other car maker has had the balls to deliver those kind of vehicles in
> recent times.

Cobras certainly are kick-ass cars, but I still think you have to
acknowledge cars like the 300C, Magnum, Charger, and of course the
venerable SRT-10 (both Viper and truck). Overall, Dodge has the most
in-your-face attitude with what they've offered in recent years. And it
all goes back to the Neon SRT-4.

>>>>> 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.
>>> I don't think OHC engines are an order of magnitude better. IMO,
>>> they allow more tools at the engineer's disposal to make power
>>> reliably and with less manufacturing cost. The OHC engines offer
>>> multi-valve heads, VVT, multiple intake runners and very high rpm
>>> capability to name a few.
>>> They can be designed to match an OHV engine and then some. Just
>>> look
>>> at the newer OHV engines, they are taking design elements (like VVT)
>>> that have existed in OHC engines for almost a decade or more.
>>
>> Totally agreed. Like Patrick used to say (poorly paraphrased), it's
>> a great time to have a driver's license.
>
> Amen, brother!
>
>>> The other thing that I think is going to ultimately make OHV engines
>>> hit a wall is displacement. From what I see in the Vette and Viper
>>> they have to have cubic inches to get the power levels those cars
>>> need. How far can they go with this design philosophy? Even in the
>>> hay days of the 1960s there were displacement limits. The Z06 is at
>>> 427 cubic inches already with and engine that is stroked to the moon
>>> and back.
>>
>> They'll either go to V10s or big blocks. LOL!
>
> Actually, I think they will go the OHC route first. Did you hear that
> Chevy is bringing the ZR1 back? Wanna bet it has an OHC engine?

Guess we'll have to wait and see...

>>> Basically, an engine is an air pump. The more air you move the more
>>> power you make. The OHC design allows more flexibility to move the
>>> air more efficiently. Not and order of magnitude more efficiently
>>> but a measurable amount.
>>>
>>>>> 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".
>>> What you call "under engineered" I call untapped potential for
>>> making more power (i.e. headroom).
>>
>> I was sort of being facetious, but at least I was able to make my
>> point.
>>
>>> I think Ford intentionally does this to
>>> give the Mustang buyer the ability to tweak his car to get more
>>> performance for cheap. I think Ford chiseled this in the Mustang's
>>> list of commandments when they conceived it back in the 1960s.
>>
>> Great thought, but I don't think Ford goes that far. I think they
>> figure out how to make money and that's about it.
>
> IMO, the other reason they do this is to allow them to be beat on by
> their drivers and still keep running past the warranty period.

Musatangs have had their warranty issues just as much or even moreso
than the other makers. There are plenty of bad memories to go around
when we start talking about intake plenums, Cobra specs, etc.

>>>>> 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.
>>> Well then we have to through the engine in the GT500 into the mix.
>>> That starts a whole different discussion between forced induction
>>> and N/A. IMO, that is a short argument because forced induction is
>>> the clear winner in any hp/liter discussion.
>>
>> OK, sounds good to me.
>>
>> For the life of me, I can't figure out why they stopped making the
>> Lightning...
>
> My guess is they didn't want to spend the money to R&D, and tool up,
> for the new truck chassis. The bean counters probably said the cost
> wasn't worth the profits. It looks like they killed the full time
> AWD, supercharged Sport Trac too. That looked to be one beast of a
> vehicle in the spirit of the old GM Typhoon and Cyclone.

This is where Ford needs to wake up and smell the coffee. They've got
the 450hp Harley F150, but nobody knows about it, and it's limited
production. Hello, marketing???

Speaking of blown motors, that's a nice setup. Saleen inverted twin-
screw running 6lb of boost on top of a 5.4. Bump the boost a bit and
you're over 500hp. So there ya go, Michael. Screw Mustangs, it's time
for another blown F150.

Joe wrote:
> Michael Johnson > wrote in
> :
>
>> Joe wrote:
>>> Michael Johnson > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Joe wrote:
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>> 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 read something about the Bullet engine the other day but it was
>>>> mostly guessing. I would imagine that any Mustang variant between
>>>> the GT500 and GT with have to be N/A or it will cut into GT500
>>>> sales. My guess is the Bullet will be a beter tuned GT engine that
>>>> cranks out around 340 hp. I think Ford looks at the Boss label as a
>>>> premium one and will do something special for the engine like giving
>>>> it a high redline, four valves and/or raising the displacement to
>>>> five liters. I think it will also be priced accordingly (aka too
>>>> high). Then again, I could be full of **** too.
>>> Hey, most of us are (some more than others though). At any rate, if
>>> Ford does come out with Bullet/Boss/Hurricane engines, what the hell
>>> will they put them in?? The Mustang can't go much higher in price,
>>> which would be a must for those engines.
>> Right now I think Ford is in survival mode and I doubt we will see
>> those engines any time soon. Ford doesn't lack good engines now and,
>> IMO, doesn't need the added financial burden of delivering them.
>> Besides, you make a good point, They have nothing to put them in at
>> the moment.
>
> So except for the Mustang (with a few engine variations), are you saying
> that Ford is out of the performance picture for the time being?

Yup. They need cars that sell in large quantities. Once they have
those established maybe then we will see some SVT/SVO type variants. if
Ford doesn't get another Taurus/Escort type sales champ in their lineup
I don't think they will make it. Their car sales were down 21% year to
year for September. The F150 took a beating too and they can't afford
that to happen month after month.

>>>>>> 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.
>>>> Ford has no competition against the Mustang so they really don't
>>>> have to do squat.
>>> Not yet, at least. But that's all part of what we're talking about
>>> here.
>> I still doubt the Camaro and Challenger will see the light of day. I
>> just don't think the bean counters are going to let them happen. Not
>> enough profit in them to matter in the company wide bottom line. Bean
>> counters don't care about image cars.
>
> I think there's been enough publicity for those cars that if those
> makers _don't_ put them out, people will be really ****ed off and you'll
> see a bad ripple effect. I also think the bean counters realize that.
> Dodge still has the Challenger on its web sites as "coming soon". If
> Dodge makes the Challenger and Chevy doesn't make the Camaro, Chevy will
> take a spanking for it.

GM already screwed over the Camaro crowd when they axed the car early
this decade. How many years has it been gone now? These companies
don't give two ****s about their loyal customer base. They will keep up
the charade of building them for months knowing they will delay the
launch time after time. All this hype keeps people coming to their web
site. I hope I'm wrong. IMO, the Challenger has a better chance of
becoming a reality than the Camaro. Chevy has always had to walk a fine
line with it to keep it from horning in on Corvette sales. The Corvette
guys in GM probably love the fact it is gone. Also, I think Chrysler is
probably counting their beans as we speak and finding there aren't
enough to go around. What gets shorted remains to be seen.

>>>> Funny thing is that without competition they are
>>>> offering us a very good car. IMO, they are giving us the best
>>>> lineup of Mustangs ever. I include the 1960s Mustangs in that
>>>> statement.
>>> Absolutely! I think the Mustang is one of the best deals out there
>>> now, even with "only" 300hp.
>> I also give Ford tremendous credit for producing the Cobra from 2003
>> on up. Those cars are no-holds-barred ass kickers. They are made in
>> the true spirit of the muscle/pony cars back at peak of the 1960s. No
>> other car maker has had the balls to deliver those kind of vehicles in
>> recent times.
>
> Cobras certainly are kick-ass cars, but I still think you have to
> acknowledge cars like the 300C, Magnum, Charger, and of course the
> venerable SRT-10 (both Viper and truck). Overall, Dodge has the most
> in-your-face attitude with what they've offered in recent years. And it
> all goes back to the Neon SRT-4.

There are other cars that are good. My point with the Cobras is they
are delivered with so much untapped potential hp it is almost
ridiculous. Ford has built the Cobra motors to be damn near bullet
proof. The '03/'04 engines are some of the toughest SOBs to EVER come
out of Detroit. I would venture to say they may actually be THE
TOUGHEST engine ever put into a production car. They could RELIABLY put
out over TWICE their factory horsepower levels without even removing the
valve covers. I know of no other mass produced production engine that
could pull off that feat. The GT500 looks to be built the same but I
haven't seen enough dyno pulls done on modified engines (i.e with twin
screw blowers or turbos) to know for sure.

>>>>>> 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.
>>>> I don't think OHC engines are an order of magnitude better. IMO,
>>>> they allow more tools at the engineer's disposal to make power
>>>> reliably and with less manufacturing cost. The OHC engines offer
>>>> multi-valve heads, VVT, multiple intake runners and very high rpm
>>>> capability to name a few.
>>>> They can be designed to match an OHV engine and then some. Just
>>>> look
>>>> at the newer OHV engines, they are taking design elements (like VVT)
>>>> that have existed in OHC engines for almost a decade or more.
>>> Totally agreed. Like Patrick used to say (poorly paraphrased), it's
>>> a great time to have a driver's license.
>> Amen, brother!
>>
>>>> The other thing that I think is going to ultimately make OHV engines
>>>> hit a wall is displacement. From what I see in the Vette and Viper
>>>> they have to have cubic inches to get the power levels those cars
>>>> need. How far can they go with this design philosophy? Even in the
>>>> hay days of the 1960s there were displacement limits. The Z06 is at
>>>> 427 cubic inches already with and engine that is stroked to the moon
>>>> and back.
>>> They'll either go to V10s or big blocks. LOL!
>> Actually, I think they will go the OHC route first. Did you hear that
>> Chevy is bringing the ZR1 back? Wanna bet it has an OHC engine?
>
> Guess we'll have to wait and see...

An four-valve, OHC Vette would be on hell of a car, IMO.

>>>> Basically, an engine is an air pump. The more air you move the more
>>>> power you make. The OHC design allows more flexibility to move the
>>>> air more efficiently. Not and order of magnitude more efficiently
>>>> but a measurable amount.
>>>>
>>>>>> 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".
>>>> What you call "under engineered" I call untapped potential for
>>>> making more power (i.e. headroom).
>>> I was sort of being facetious, but at least I was able to make my
>>> point.
>>>
>>>> I think Ford intentionally does this to
>>>> give the Mustang buyer the ability to tweak his car to get more
>>>> performance for cheap. I think Ford chiseled this in the Mustang's
>>>> list of commandments when they conceived it back in the 1960s.
>>> Great thought, but I don't think Ford goes that far. I think they
>>> figure out how to make money and that's about it.
>> IMO, the other reason they do this is to allow them to be beat on by
>> their drivers and still keep running past the warranty period.
>
> Musatangs have had their warranty issues just as much or even moreso
> than the other makers. There are plenty of bad memories to go around
> when we start talking about intake plenums, Cobra specs, etc.

Not with the GT engines. For the most part they have a very good track
record.

>>>>>> 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.
>>>> Well then we have to through the engine in the GT500 into the mix.
>>>> That starts a whole different discussion between forced induction
>>>> and N/A. IMO, that is a short argument because forced induction is
>>>> the clear winner in any hp/liter discussion.
>>> OK, sounds good to me.
>>>
>>> For the life of me, I can't figure out why they stopped making the
>>> Lightning...
>> My guess is they didn't want to spend the money to R&D, and tool up,
>> for the new truck chassis. The bean counters probably said the cost
>> wasn't worth the profits. It looks like they killed the full time
>> AWD, supercharged Sport Trac too. That looked to be one beast of a
>> vehicle in the spirit of the old GM Typhoon and Cyclone.
>
> This is where Ford needs to wake up and smell the coffee. They've got
> the 450hp Harley F150, but nobody knows about it, and it's limited
> production. Hello, marketing???
>
> Speaking of blown motors, that's a nice setup. Saleen inverted twin-
> screw running 6lb of boost on top of a 5.4. Bump the boost a bit and
> you're over 500hp. So there ya go, Michael. Screw Mustangs, it's time
> for another blown F150.

I liked the Lightning but it wasn't something I would buy. I really
have no use for a truck that runs that hard. I would rather spend the
money on a sports car and have a better overall driving experience.