Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
I'm with you. Not to say the 5.0L Ford is bad at all or to make it a Chevy vs Ford thing (Nick did say pushrods though), but I'd take the GM LS3 6.2L with 430HP 424 lb-ft. For most all purposes even with pushrods it does everything this 4V 5 L does.
http://www.insideline.com/ford/mustang/2...-camaro-ss.html
Quote:
Yeah, the straight-line performance is agonizingly close (and apparently varies car to car), but that doesn't mean the power plants of the Camaro SS and Mustang GT are clones of each other. With its advantage of 1.2 liters in displacement and old-school pushrod valvetrain, the Camaro's 6.2-liter LS3 V8 makes big chunks of torque down low in its power band (it peaks at 420 pound-feet at 4,600 rpm, but also makes plenty right off idle), and then pulls strong until it starves for air near its 6,400-rpm redline. It's a throwback engine with great bottom-end grunt and a pretty good top end.
In contrast, the Mustang GT's 5.0-liter V8 puts its deep-breathing 32 valves controlled by dual overhead cams and variable valve timing to work, starting off a bit soft at the bottom end (all its 390 lb-ft of torque aren't available until 4,250 rpm), then pulls mightily through the midrange until it's screaming at its 7,000-rpm redline. This is a 21st-century V8, combining pretty good bottom-end thrust with a great top-end thrill zone.
But Nick said 5.0L, and you just brought up a 6.2L........... Increased to 6.2L, the Coyote would be making 550HP.
However, Ford DOES make a 6.2L (Hurricane), it is only in the trucks, but makes 411HP/434lb-ft.
Nothing wrong with either approach. Dual VCT simply allows you to make the same power from less displacement more livable by providing the ability to move the power band around.
I know he mentioned 5L and of course a 4 valve has higher HP/L pontential. But it makes little sense to limit to 5L when an extra mere 20-30% of displacement with a pushrod 2V gets the same power output, equal or lighter weight, engine compactness, low center of gravity, fuel efficiency etc.
That's my point with as little as 24% increase in displacement you gain pairity or better to a 4V and really give up nothing. If you were giving up anything with the added displacement then it wouldn't be valid to give the OHV design extra displacement.
But then we are going in circles
I mean Ford chose 5.0L for the obvious nostalgia associated with the moniker, and if the power increases linearly with displacement (which we can fudge and pretend it does here) then at 6.2L, the same DOHC engine would be making 550HP
The "limit" they've put on the engine's displacement wasn't a limit. They CHOSE to go that route, to bring back the nostalgia of the 5.0L and the Trans-Am era BOSS 302 to essentially create a modern-day version of the toilet-headed high-winding engine that the BOSS 302 was originally as well as tug on the heart strings of the guys that owned the 5.0L Fox body cars of yesteryear.
They don't even use this engine in the Shelby, it gets the venerable 5.4L. And if they REALLY wanted to, they could have used an all-aluminum version of the 6.2L from the Raptor which is rumoured to be able to grow up to 8+L, has a big 'ol 4" bore and even the truck heads flow incredibly well.
GM and Ford, like usual, chose different routes
GM went with a pushrod motor, decided to up the displacement and deal with the HP/L penalty afforded by not having the ability to control the timing of the intake and exhaust valves independently. Ford decided to forge on with the Modular series, but with a big upgrade in the cylinder head department. They kept the displacement ceiling relatively low because they were shooting for that all too well known "5.0" target
And its not like the cars the engines are going in are similar either. Like the 3rd gen F-body versus the Fox, they are pretty different.
And ultimately, I think that's a good thing
