Hemi Challenger

Hemi Challenger

Group: rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang Date: Tue, Oct 2, 2007, 8:13pm
From: (Michael*Johnson)
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.


I have always loved the Mustang from its early beginning until its moden
day presence...But unfortunately I am just too Damn tall to fit
comfortably inside of a stang...so I bought an 03 Lightning instead,
which i truly love... But in my opinion Ford killed a great vehicle
doing away with the Lightning, Just as they did with the 8 cyl T-bird &
Cougar.

"Toad Monster" > wrote in message
...

Hemi Challenger

Group: rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang Date: Tue, Oct 2, 2007, 8:13pm
From: (Michael Johnson)
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.


I have always loved the Mustang from its early beginning until its moden
day presence...But unfortunately I am just too Damn tall to fit
comfortably inside of a stang...so I bought an 03 Lightning instead,
which i truly love... But in my opinion Ford killed a great vehicle
doing away with the Lightning, Just as they did with the 8 cyl T-bird &
Cougar.

Too damn tall?
How the hell tall are you?
Taller than 6'4" with a 38 inch inseam?
This new 2005+ Mustang (or any fox body Ford car) is the first one I don't
have to have the drivers seat all the way back in, and still not have enough
leg room...
I was thinking Ford finally started to figure out...

Toad Monster wrote:
>
> Hemi Challenger
>
> Group: rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang Date: Tue, Oct 2, 2007, 8:13pm
> From: (Michael Johnson)
> 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.
>
>
> I have always loved the Mustang from its early beginning until its moden
> day presence...But unfortunately I am just too Damn tall to fit
> comfortably inside of a stang...so I bought an 03 Lightning instead,
> which i truly love... But in my opinion Ford killed a great vehicle
> doing away with the Lightning, Just as they did with the 8 cyl T-bird &
> Cougar.

I think Ford did themselves a BIG disservice when they killed the T-Bird
from the 1990s way more than killing the two seater version. We had a
1994 T'Bird for years with a 4.6L V-8 and it was a great car. The only
downside was its weight but then it seems everything nowadays is
overweight. Ford should have redesigned that chassis and used it
further. It was a very good RWD IRS vehicle and Ford desperately needs
this type of car today. Especially, this type of car with a Thunderbird
brand name.

Toad Monster wrote:
>
> Hemi Challenger
>
> Group: rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang Date: Tue, Oct 2, 2007, 8:13pm
> From: cdsBLAH!erols.com (Michael Johnson)
> Joe wrote:
> Michael Johnson <cdsBLAH!erols.com> wrote in
> :
> Joe wrote:
> Michael Johnson <cdsBLAH!erols.com> wrote in
> :
> Joe wrote:
> <snip>


WTF is wrong with you? You don't post peoples unmunged email
address to Usenet. That's a assured addition to numerous spam lists.

--
"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
...
> Toad Monster wrote:
>> Hemi Challenger Group: rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang Date: Tue,
>> Oct 2, 2007, 8:13pm
>> From: cdsBLAH!erols.com (Michael Johnson) Joe wrote: Michael Johnson
>> <cdsBLAH!erols.com> wrote in
>> : Joe wrote: Michael
>> Johnson <cdsBLAH!erols.com> wrote in
>> : Joe wrote: <snip>
>
>
> WTF is wrong with you? You don't post peoples unmunged email address
> to Usenet. That's a assured addition to numerous spam lists.
>

He can't post something that isn't there, if a poster has left a real email
address in their Usenet postings, someone "REPOSTING" it, is not the
problem...

Spammers glean the headers too.

He can't post something that isn't there, if a poster has left a real
email address in their Usenet postings, someone "REPOSTING" it, is not
the problem...
Spammers glean the headers too.



That makes logical sense to me..All I did was re-copy what was already
there to begin with...lol t/y

Toad Monster wrote:
> He can't post something that isn't there, if a poster has left a real
> email address in their Usenet postings, someone "REPOSTING" it, is not
> the problem...
> Spammers glean the headers too.
>
>
>
> That makes logical sense to me..All I did was re-copy what was already
> there to begin with...lol t/y

No harm, no foul. It is a dead email address.

Toad Monster wrote:
> He can't post something that isn't there, if a poster has left a real
> email address in their Usenet postings, someone "REPOSTING" it, is not
> the problem...
> Spammers glean the headers too.
>
>
>
> That makes logical sense to me..All I did was re-copy what was already
> there to begin with...lol t/y
>


You posted headers in the body of the message.

--
"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:
>> 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.
>

And of course, people who know what they're talking about would say that
turbines are great for specific tasks but not suitable for passenger cars.

"WindsorFox" > wrote in message
...
> Toad Monster wrote:
>> He can't post something that isn't there, if a poster has left a real
>> email address in their Usenet postings, someone "REPOSTING" it, is not
>> the problem... Spammers glean the headers too. That makes logical sense
>> to me..All I did was re-copy what was already
>> there to begin with...lol t/y
>>
>
>
> You posted headers in the body of the message.

So what?
Spammers glean the headers too.
The spammers aren't actually reading the the millions of Usenet posts. It
is done with software that reads the headers as well as the message body ...

Fer Christ sake.



>
> --
> "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