Hemi Challenger

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 23:04:23 -0400, trainfan1
> wrote:


>AND the 413 was a car engine long before it was a truck engine...
>
>Rob
The 413 hit the cars in '59
I know the 1960 LCF had the 413 as the "standard" engine, so "long
before" is only 12 months max.
I think the C series (LCF) truck came out aboutJune or July 1959 -
making "long before" closer to 10 months

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

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 22:35:18 -0400, Michael Johnson >
wrote:


>> That said, Ford really screwed up with the 3.8!!!
>
>I wouldn't say they screwed up the engine design as much as they screwed
>up the head gasket specifications.

And the bearing specs. Any bearing that cannot stand2% glycol in the
oil is JUNK.

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

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 23:08:10 -0400, Michael Johnson >
wrote:


>
>> Under NORMAL HIGHWAY DRIVING an engine with dual overhead cams and 4
>> valves per cyl has little if any advantage over a pushrod 2 valve
>> engine of the same displacement. It has NO advantage over that pushrod
>> engine in durability or longevity, all else being equal.
>
>I disagree with the above. With VVT, multiple intake and/or exhaust
>valves, dual tuned runners etc. the power band can be enhanced from idle
>to redline. In the OHV engines I have run to high mileage the bigest
>chance of parts failure has rested with the valve train. It can be a
>ticking lifter, bent push rod or a bum rocker arm. IMO, these
>components are the Achille's heals for OHV engines. They don't exist in
>an OHC engine and therefore con not be the cause of failures. The
>durability of Ford's 4.6L is legendary already and I chalk a lot of it
>up to the OHC design. Fewer reciprocating parts mean greater
>reliability and longer life, IMO.

Comparing to FORD OHV engines I'll give you that. The valve train on
the 551M/351C was definitely inferior. As was the Bos 351 (and the
Chevy 396)

They all had rocker and/or valve spring issues (but they ran insane
speeds for pushrod engines)

The Chevy SBC was also legendary - and with proper oil changes could
EASILY go 200,000 miles in the good years (when they didn't have
"butter" camshafts)

So could 318s and even 225s.

If those engines had the advantage of today's oil technology and
leadfree gasoline (with the proper valve materials) and EFI they would
have run extremely stronly against today's engines as far as
reliability is concerned.

The logenvity of todays engines has as much to do with those 3 items
as anything else.

Leadfree fuel is the major advantage, followed by fuel injection and
electronic engine controls, followed by lubrication technology (up
untill about 2000).
Today's oils are headed back due to emission demands reducing the EP
additives etc.
>
>> It has a definite DISADVANTAGE when it comes to cost to repair.
>> It is also at a disadvantage packaging-wise- as it is significantly
>> larger in virtually all dimensions than a pushrod engine. It is also
>> generally HEAVIER if made of the same materials.
>> Yes, many high output OHC engines are lighter than the equivalent OHV
>> engine, but just because the "low tech" engine elected to stay with
>> cast iron heads and block instead of the aluminum used by many/most
>> OHC engines for at least the heads, and most often the blocks.
>
>I will give you that OHC heads are more a throw away part the their OHV
>counter part. That being said the infrequency of early catastrophic
>engine failure in today's engines (OHV and OHC) makes this a minimal
>issue. If today's cars are maintained well engine failures are few and
>far between.
>
>> That said, today's thin cast iron blocks suffer only a small weight
>> penalty over the average aluminum block of only a few years ago.
>>
>> So - if you are talking no-holds barred performance engines, and
>> maintenance/repair costs (as well as production costs) are a secondary
>> consideration - yes, OHC engines have an advantage.
>> DOHC has a marge larger advantage over SOHC than SOHC has over OHV
>> technology when you get into the higher output higher speed engines
>> because variable cam geometry is so much easier on a dual cam setup.
>>
>> This does NOT make a pushrod engine necessarily a lesser engine for
>> some 90+% of owners and drivers.
>
>I agree. But I think we also both agree that for high performance
>applications OHC engine have inherent advantages that OHV engines can't
>match. Remember the 427 SOHC engine Ford had in the 1960s? The OHC
>design made it one of the best engines of that era. It was the only
>engine that NASCAR banned because it was eating the Hemis alive. The
>OHC design made it too durable to run with push rod motors. This also
>reminds me of the only turbine car to run in the Indy 500. It bitched
>slapped the entire field of cars that year until its gearbox failed with
>two laps remaining. I wonder what we would have in today's cars if they
>hadn't banned the turbine and SOHC engines? At a minimum I think we
>would have seen OHC engines in production cars much sooner.


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

Michael Johnson > wrote in
:

> 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.

Just read that in this morning's business section. Looks like Toyota's
putting one more nail in Ford's coffin...

>>>>>>> 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.

If Chevy screws the public again by not bringing out the Camaro, they
can pretty much kiss the performance crowd (except, of course, for the
Corvette) goodbye.

>>>>> 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.

Sure, there are others, but a single maker hasn't come up with that kind
of lineup in a while. BTW, we should start another thread about those
cars...

> 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.

Those are pretty tall claims, Michael. If they're all true, I have to
wonder why Ford built them that way if they weren't going to build more
potent engines. It simply doesn't make financial sense.

>>>>>>> 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.

IMO _any_ Corvette these days is a helluva car.

>>>>> 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.

Since I can't afford both, I prefer to go with the practicality of a
truck, but I also want gobs of power and somewhat decent handling.

Joe wrote:
> Michael Johnson > wrote in
> :
>
>> 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.
>
> Just read that in this morning's business section. Looks like Toyota's
> putting one more nail in Ford's coffin...

I don't know if it is Toyota pounding the nails in or if it is Ford
themselves.

>>>>>>>> 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.
>
> If Chevy screws the public again by not bringing out the Camaro, they
> can pretty much kiss the performance crowd (except, of course, for the
> Corvette) goodbye.

I think they are fully capable of screwing the Camaro fans. They have
been doing it for years. Another reason I think GM won't bring the car
back is it doesn't have a chassis sitting there for it like Chrysler
does with the Challenger.

>>>>>> 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.
>
> Sure, there are others, but a single maker hasn't come up with that kind
> of lineup in a while. BTW, we should start another thread about those
> cars...

I will give you that Chrysler has delivered several decent performance
cars. More than any other brand, IMO.

>> 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.
>
> Those are pretty tall claims, Michael. If they're all true, I have to
> wonder why Ford built them that way if they weren't going to build more
> potent engines. It simply doesn't make financial sense.

It is true. I have seen too many dyno runs and 1/4 mile ETs to prove
it. The reason they built it that way is because John Colletti made it
happen. I think he wanted to built a no-holds-barred engine and he got
his way. He also wanted the Mustang to DESTROY the Camaro in no
uncertain terms. I also think he wanted to deliver an engine for the
gear heads to turn into a monster. Fortunately for us Ford has elected
to follow his blueprint for the GT500. That engine is basically the
terminator with a little more displacement. Personally, I would rather
have seen them use the Terminator engine topped with the twin screw
blower for the GT500.

>>>>>>>> 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.
>
> IMO _any_ Corvette these days is a helluva car.

True, but with a nice and smooth OHC engine it would reach a new level
of sweetness, 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.
>
> Since I can't afford both, I prefer to go with the practicality of a
> truck, but I also want gobs of power and somewhat decent handling.

trainfan1 wrote:
> My Name Is Nobody wrote:
>> <clare at snyder.on.ca> wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 20:39:11 GMT, "My Name Is Nobody" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "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...
>>>>
>>> So, Chrysler's 413 was a truck engine. So was Ford's 460, and GM's 396
>>> and 427.(and the venerable 409 too)
>>> Didn't make them any less of a good car engine
>>
>> Fords 460 was a Lincoln car engine long before it was a truck engine...
>>
>>>
>
> AND the 413 was a car engine long before it was a truck engine...
>
> Rob

I know a guy with a 413 Max Wedge on a stand.

--
"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:

> I agree. But I think we also both agree that for high performance
> applications OHC engine have inherent advantages that OHV engines can't
> match. Remember the 427 SOHC engine Ford had in the 1960s? The OHC
> design made it one of the best engines of that era. It was the only
> engine that NASCAR banned because it was eating the Hemis alive. The
> OHC design made it too durable to run with push rod motors. This also
> reminds me of the only turbine car to run in the Indy 500. It bitched
> slapped the entire field of cars that year until its gearbox failed with
> two laps remaining. I wonder what we would have in today's cars if they
> hadn't banned the turbine and SOHC engines? At a minimum I think we
> would have seen OHC engines in production cars much sooner.


And we'd probably have those flying cars that tehy promised us back
in the late 50's. In general that echoes my thoughts on the OHC as
well. IMHO they are just delaying the inevitable and losing mileage and
durability in the mean time.

--
"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

"WindsorFox" > wrote in message
...
> Michael Johnson wrote:
>
>> I agree. But I think we also both agree that for high performance
>> applications OHC engine have inherent advantages that OHV engines can't
>> match. Remember the 427 SOHC engine Ford had in the 1960s? The OHC
>> design made it one of the best engines of that era. It was the only
>> engine that NASCAR banned because it was eating the Hemis alive. The OHC
>> design made it too durable to run with push rod motors. This also
>> reminds me of the only turbine car to run in the Indy 500. It bitched
>> slapped the entire field of cars that year until its gearbox failed with
>> two laps remaining. I wonder what we would have in today's cars if they
>> hadn't banned the turbine and SOHC engines? At a minimum I think we
>> would have seen OHC engines in production cars much sooner.
>
>
> And we'd probably have those flying cars that tehy promised us back in
> the late 50's. In general that echoes my thoughts on the OHC as well.
> IMHO they are just delaying the inevitable and losing mileage and
> durability in the mean time.
>

Meet George Jetson, Jane his wife, daughter Judy, his boy Elroy... LMAO


> --
> "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

WindsorFox wrote:
> Michael Johnson wrote:
>
>> I agree. But I think we also both agree that for high performance
>> applications OHC engine have inherent advantages that OHV engines
>> can't match. Remember the 427 SOHC engine Ford had in the 1960s? The
>> OHC design made it one of the best engines of that era. It was the
>> only engine that NASCAR banned because it was eating the Hemis alive.
>> The OHC design made it too durable to run with push rod motors. This
>> also reminds me of the only turbine car to run in the Indy 500. It
>> bitched slapped the entire field of cars that year until its gearbox
>> failed with two laps remaining. I wonder what we would have in
>> today's cars if they hadn't banned the turbine and SOHC engines? At a
>> minimum I think we would have seen OHC engines in production cars much
>> sooner.
>
>
> And we'd probably have those flying cars that tehy promised us back
> in the late 50's. In general that echoes my thoughts on the OHC as
> well. IMHO they are just delaying the inevitable and losing mileage and
> durability in the mean time.

Much of what we have in the cars of today are based in racing's roots.
I have no doubt that if turbines were allowed to run at Indy and the
rest of the cars would have to conform and also run turbines or be
perpetual loosers. Had the Indy cars gone turbine back then the fans
would be open to them in production cars and actually demand them to be
built. Chrysler went down that road briefly but interest never
developed. Had Indy let the turbines run things would probably have
turned out differently.

Michael Johnson wrote:
> WindsorFox wrote:
>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>
>>> I agree. But I think we also both agree that for high performance
>>> applications OHC engine have inherent advantages that OHV engines
>>> can't match. Remember the 427 SOHC engine Ford had in the 1960s?
>>> The OHC design made it one of the best engines of that era. It was
>>> the only engine that NASCAR banned because it was eating the Hemis
>>> alive. The OHC design made it too durable to run with push rod
>>> motors. This also reminds me of the only turbine car to run in the
>>> Indy 500. It bitched slapped the entire field of cars that year
>>> until its gearbox failed with two laps remaining. I wonder what we
>>> would have in today's cars if they hadn't banned the turbine and SOHC
>>> engines? At a minimum I think we would have seen OHC engines in
>>> production cars much sooner.
>>
>>
>> And we'd probably have those flying cars that tehy promised us
>> back in the late 50's. In general that echoes my thoughts on the OHC
>> as well. IMHO they are just delaying the inevitable and losing mileage
>> and durability in the mean time.
>
> Much of what we have in the cars of today are based in racing's roots. I
> have no doubt that if turbines were allowed to run at Indy and the rest
> of the cars would have to conform and also run turbines or be perpetual
> loosers. Had the Indy cars gone turbine back then the fans would be
> open to them in production cars and actually demand them to be built.
> Chrysler went down that road briefly but interest never developed. Had
> Indy let the turbines run things would probably have turned out
> differently.

The conspiracy theorists of course say that the car companies
couldn't have it because they last too long.

--
"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