bascho

Good example

bascho

I plan on buying the GT500 in August 2007 (when the RX8 lease is up) and I can tell you that the day I walk off the lot with it, I will be looking at aftermarket exhaust which can easily bring the hp rating near 500hp with that mod alone. Lighter racing seats, battery relocation, lighter hood, rear seat removal, etc.......I am pretty sure I could get her down to 3500lbs without losing too many creature comforts. Now 500hp and 3500lbs that brings the ratio down to 7lbs/hp. Not quite as good as the C6 ZO6....but better than the C5 ZO6

rx8wannahave

I know you will enjoy your GT500...475HP is probably all you need to say.

BaronVonBigmeat

I wonder how GM has been able to offer the LS2 with an aluminum block and still keep costs down? Probably it's because they don't have to resort to multivalve/multicam heads, or superchargers. Long term, Ford needs to quit dicking around and develop a next-gen pushrod motor like the Hemis and LS# for their trucks and performance cars. Bascho, why was the "Hurricane" engine project abandoned?

rx8wannahave

^^^^AMEN TO THAT!

The pushrod can do it!

Michael

Glad they're building the mustang for what people use it for, but it wont bring Ford out of the red.

snizzle

High development costs.... that's what I read anyway at the time.

snizzle

Also, wasn't Ford developing a 6.4L V10 for the next supercar? is that nixed as well?

bascho

Ford will never go back to push-rod.....they are finally 'mastering the modular'. Anyways, the Ford modular engines tend to produce greater hp per liter of displacement. I am not knocking pushrod motors.....but GM and DCX have had to use much larger displacement motors to get the power Ford gets from it's smaller modular motors. GM is able to produce aluminum block LS2 rather inexpensively because they use that motor in a larger range of vehicles and therefore can lower the price per block. Hypothetically, if Ford were to use the aluminum 5.4 block for a new Lightning, a SVT Explorer, the GT500, and the GT, well, then Ford could lower the price per block and feasibly use it in the GT500 for the current price base. But since the total production of the GT and GT500 are going to be so low......the cost of the aluminum block does not meet the current goal of getting the base price under $40K. Now, if DCX brings out the Challenger and GM brings the Camaro.....you can bet that Ford will consider the aluminum block oin the GT500.

The Hurricane engine is not abandoned.....but I can't tell you when it's slated for release because that has not been made public. But the Hurricane engine is not for cars.....it's a 6.2L Twin-Turbo Diesel for the F-SuperDuty line-up.

bascho

You mean Ford North America? Ford Motor Company made $2 billion profit in 2005.

bascho

The V10 was used in the Shelby Cobra Concept, but that powertrain is not in production yet....if ever. Ford is really excited about the Tri-fuel S/C V10 (Hydrogen, E85 or gas) used in the Super Chief Concept which is being desplayed at autoshows all over the world. This is the technology that Ford want to offer in the future......flex fuel vehicles on steroids. Check it out if you've never seen it

http://media.ford.com/newsroom/relea...?release=22295

snizzle

I didn't see anything about this at the Washington Auto Show. I saw plenty of hybird fuel stuff on the GM side though.

That is one sweet engine. Tell Ford I said go with it.

rx8wannahave

Hmmm, this is where I take issue...

GM's V8 has better (significantly) fuel economy, is lighter (IF I remember right), cost less (IF I remember right) to make, is less complicated, and makes more HP (regardless of it's based on size).

So, Chevy's 400HP V8 gets 3mpg more in the highway than Ford's 300HP V8 so who cares if it's smaller?

Bascho...don't take this the wrong way, I want American car companies to be the leaders of the world and you know I respect the new Mustang GT and GT500.

But, I don’t' see the need for DOHC or SOHC engines when all they offer is smaller size while getting "significantly" less mpg. Why is this key…or very important? Have you seen gas prices? Ford can’t ignore this issue with their V8’s.

Did you hear the latest, the 400HP version of the Chevy V8 is soon to be making 30mpg in the Highway now that they have cylinder shutoff technology.

So, I hope the best for Ford...but your V8 is inferior to the Chevy V8 in my opinion. All I see it offers is a smaller footprint (if that)...but, who cares if your fuel economy sucks or is just average for a V8.

17/25 is not very impressive for a V8 when you compare it to the Chevy V8’s 18/28 while making 100 more HP.

Oh, and if you say it’s gearing…well, fix that then because almost EVERYTHING has a 6-speed now a days and there is no reason why the Mustang GT still has a 5-speed. Yes yes…cost, but make it work already.

Note: Bascho…sorry, I kind of putt too much on your shoulders regarding Ford…lol, you should have never told me you work for them…lol.

BaronVonBigmeat

google image search for "302 versus 4.6" yielded this



oh wait i forgot, the only size that matters is the piston bores

bascho

GM builds exceptional engines......always have. The estimated mpg of the LS2 equipped vehicles is waaay off though.....and the EPA is going to prove that in 2008 with the new standards for testing. My coworkers GTO gets more like 13/19 in real world use. When he is racing it around town it gets even worse. The best he's ever gotten is 22 mpg at 65mph on a 3 hour trip. The cylinder deactivation will make a large improvement for sure.......but only if you are maintaining a certain speed. I agree that Ford needs a similar system though since DCX and GM are offering one.

I am not a engine development engineer, so I am not sure of all the benefits of over-head cam engines......but Ford is not the only company using this technology so it can't be that inferior. I think many high-end exotics are using over-head cam engines (not that it's important to this conversation).

I agree that a 6-speed trans can be valuable to fuel economy.....if it's geared correctly. Look at the 6MT in the 8, 6th is a totally useless gear because it's too tall. 4,000RPM at 80mph WTF? Not sure why Ford didn't incorporate the T56 from the last gen Cobra into the GT.

I always appreciate your comments and criticism because you do so in a mature fashion. You and I have had some good discussions on this forum and I respect your opinion.......you never have to apologize to me for that.

bascho

That picture is awesome!!! Man the 302 looks so tiny next to the 4.6......gotta love those huge dual cam heads though. I know Ford isn't packing the 4.6 with tons of hp from the factory......but those modulars really love a S/C. It's like they were made to be FI. When you can buy a Mustang off the dealer lot, throw $3K down on a S/C and push over 400hp......that's a pretty sweet deal.

snizzle

Ok, w/o knowing a great deal about FI theory...

what makes modulars better for it?

bascho

Actually I have no idea....and it may not even be a modular design in general..... but the Ford modular engines seem to react better to FI then the older 302 does. I am going to do some research and see if anyone has a intelligent explanation for this. Again, I am not saying FI always promotes greater gains in modular engines vs. pushrod engines.....I am just saying that in Ford's two small blocks, the modular reacts better to FI.

belkjz

i think some of gm's mpg ratings come from not being able to shift from first to 2nd or 3rd unless under hard accceleration too. which is just crap cause there are all kinds of reasons a driver may need to shift.

my soon to be father in-law is a ford dealer. i wonder what kind of deal they would give him on one. i'm sure it wouldnt be the 200$ over cost he gets normally.

PoorCollegeKid

From what I know about engine types:

Overhead cam engines usually allow for greater power/displacement figures. This is important in racing series (where displacement is limited) and in many foreign countries (where taxes on a car are partially based on its engine's displacement, so getting the same amount of power out of an engine of lesser displacement is financially beneficial). Many exotics use engines based on racing units, so OHC setups are used. OHC engines are also perceived to be "higher tech" despite being an older technology than pushrods, so people will pay a premium for these kinds of engines thinking they're getting the latest and greatest technology. Some people also like the sound of OHC engines more than OHV engines, or they like their revvier nature (although Ford's OHC engines don't rev any higher than GMs OHV ones), or they like peakier powerbands, or they just like being able to say that they can keep up with or beat cars with larger displacement engines in a race, all of which are things that OHC engines offer.

Pushrod engines, on the other hand, allow for better power:weight and power:size ratios than OHC engines of similar construction. Their small size means that a pushrod engine of much greater displacement can be placed in the same underhood space as a "smaller" OHC lump. More displacement means more power can be generated. Alternatively, as in the case of trucks, family sedans, and other non-performance vehicles of that nature, it means that the torque curve of the engine at low rpm can be considerably strengthened while maintaining the peak power needed for the application with an engine of a given size and weight.

A broad powerband allows the pushrod engine to be run at low rpm under many normal driving conditions, improving gas mileage and reducing the wear and tear on the engine, which allows it to be produced more cheaply than an engine that would have to be spun higher to produce the same amount of power. Not only that, but the engine's reliance on greater displacement to produce a broad, strong torque curve rather than complicated electronic and mechanical controls to achieve the same effect drastically reduces a performance-biased pushrod engine's cost when compared to that of the OHC competition. As a matter of fact, I think that you can order an LS7 for around $14,000, whereas a more highly strung (but much less powerful) S54 (M3's 3.2L I6) goes for $17,000-$18,000 (and this may be just for a shortblock), and that engine is made of iron. For a size comparison, here's a shot of an LS1 (approximately the same external dimensions as the LS7) in an E36 engine bay:

Japan8

351 Windsor Vs 5.4L MOD? Are you serious?

Saleen Mustang S351
Engine
Configuration Supercharged V8
Valvetrain OHV
Displacement 5752 cc / 351.0 cu in
Power 369.1 Kw / 495.0 bhp @ 5400 rpm
Torque 664.4 Nm / 490.0 ft lbs @ 3500 rpm
Bore 101.6 mm / 4.0 in
Stroke 88.9 mm / 3.5 in
Compression Ratio 8.2:1
BHP / Liter 86.06 bhp
Redline Not Available

Ford Shelby GT500 Convertible
Engine type superchrgd dohc 4-valve/cyl V-8
Displacement 5409 cc
Bore x stroke 90.2 mm x 105.8 mm
Compression ratio 8.4:1
Horsepower (SAE) est 475 bhp @ 6000 rpm
Torque est 475 lb-ft @ 3500 rpm
Fuel delivery elect. sequential port

And you were saying again?

As the pic from BarronBigMeat shows... the DOHC MOD engine is bigger, heavier, top heavy and since it's inception in the Mustang in 1994, it hasn't made any decent power until the 2002/3 SVT Cobra and that's with a S/C... in NA form it wasn't until 2005. The engine is inferior. The LS7 is more compact, lighter, makes a lot more power and gets better gas mileage. The MOD V8 doesn't even have a higher redline than the pushrod motors even if it has VVT OHC on it. Just admit it... Ford screwed up again. They should have followed GM on this one... they have the Northstar V8 with OHC and the pushrod LS series. Ford should have updated/reengineered the pushrod V8's AND made the MOD V8's... and used them in the same way.

rx8wannahave

Well, I’ve never owned a LS V8 so I can’t argue…but honestly while everyone keeps telling the EPA their testing sucks, honestly I’ve ALWAYS been able to do better than what the EPA listed.

In my probe GT (22/26) I use to get in all city 24mpg.

In my RX8 (18/24) I’m getting 19.2mpg lifetime average (with no lower than 18.6mpg)

So, I honestly still believe based on my own experience that the way people drive is the main factor on what they are going to get.

But again, I’ve never owned a LS so I can’t really argue. Let's see what the EPA comes up with in 2008. I fear our beloved RX8 might get 10mpg city...

I know, this is my biggest gripe with the RX8…I mean what was Mazda thinking???? If we were at 3K I think the 8 would get 27mpg highway.

Thanks.

Well, with $25 or is it $50 you could remove that from the tranny so not big deal really.

Like explained, the OHV engine can be at lower rpm so that's really how it can save such gas because it's RPM's are so low on the highway.

Japan8

Why is it that other companies can so extensively use aluminum block engines... even in FI applications? Even Mitsubishi is changing in the next Evo. Are you serious about $10K?! Is Ford unable to design one that can be affordably produced?

As I mentioned... if they couldn't use the GT's supercharger, then they should have intercooled it. Else since the issue was production volume, then another supplier for the GT500's supercharger... but still twin screw.

Japan8

There was another mentioned in one of the major car mags. It wasn't anything official. It was a pet project of several engineers. They took an SN95 Mustang and dropped in a V10 made from joining a couple MOD engines. NO useable ECU existed, so they used two... one for each cylinder bank. The magazine guys loved it... incredible power they said.

MikeW

I wouldn't even consider a mustang because of the solid rear axle.
That car can not even hope of having a good pitch balance.
Sure not all cars can have a 45/55 f/r or more rear biased weight distribution.

The RX-8 doesn't have EGR, it needs it.
The new 6 speed automatic top gear is ~30mph/1000 revs.
The new auto is too tall, the axle ratio should be 4.444 and the 6 speed manual should be 4.3 for better mileage.