For all the 5.0L naysayers

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: artificialist
Well, yes, overkill. What I am saying is that during the 1960s most Mustangs had a 289, and putting a 429 SCJ was quite a job, because of the size difference.


Yeah, but at least both were available in the car, LOL! The Fox didn't have a 32V Modular as an engine option at any point in its production period

Not to mention all the exciting wiring associated with hooking it up in injected form, heheh

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Rand
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
I was a hotrodder but no place to run these babies anymore. I tromp almost everone on the road with a 1.5L - thats how slow and conjested traffic is. I was running a Porsche on the highway one night (in a rare moment for me these days) and even he gave up at 115mph while i was jammed up against the "warranty" fuel cutoff. What am I saying - more fun to drive a "slow" car fast than a fast car slow. My last muscle car was a Bullitt "stang '01. the V6 ponies are WA Ytoo fast enough for anybody. -

AFA overtuned - The Honda would make 400 hp if it was a 5 litre - and this isan "economy" stroker small valve engine. V8s have been ridculously detuned for ages.


so THATS what happened to the ranger and yaris....


Oh no, he's been found out! LOL!

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
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

I'm not disagreeing with any of that. I was disagreeing with the idea, and not saying it was your idea, that a good pushrod V8 design really gives up anything to DOHC 4V. Again, a small increase in displacement and you have power parity and give up nothing really.

Either approach works and both have their benefits and drawbacks.

 

[dave1251]

I do not often say this believe it or not.

But I told you so.

 

[Ben99GT]

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.


I'd take a 5.0, since it makes more power stock-for-stock and bolt-on for bolt-on and comes in a lighter car. Heck, it even gets an extra 2 MPG vs the LS3 Camaro. Nothing but win coming from that 4V DOHC complexity despite being down by ~70 cubic inches.

http://www.lsxtv.com/tech-stories/engine...t-on-throwdown/

 

[Ben99GT]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Obviously you've never ridden in an old DZ302 Z28. And with a carburetor and distributor, no less. Easy 400 rwhp as delivered with a sharp tune.


400 rwhp as delivered? Not a chance. The 302 Z/28s were/are flat turds as delivered by today's standards.

http://www.tracklab.biz/Dynoshows/MotorState2010/Weaver_Camaro.html

 

[SteveSRT8]

Hey, that is NOT a real DZ302 power curve. Their peak HP was delivered at around 7 grand. They actually were gutless under 4000 rpm though, I'll give you that.

Remember I said TUNED PROPERLY. These modern engines run great right out of the box.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: dparm
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8

How about posting up the info on that 5 valver Dparm. Seems like it let go a bit early as well.


LOL what do you want to know?


Specifically how many miles on it, how long do those things last? I'm referring to the pics you posted long ago of a rebuild .

5 valves is going to be even worse than 4 for leakdown.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Great points, all. I appreciate the civility around here.

We're talking power output, not arguing how much empty space is inside the engine!

If I can have BIG power in a small and light package with LESS complexity I know what I'll choose every time.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

Originally Posted By: Rand
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
I was a hotrodder but no place to run these babies anymore. I tromp almost everone on the road with a 1.5L - thats how slow and conjested traffic is. I was running a Porsche on the highway one night (in a rare moment for me these days) and even he gave up at 115mph while i was jammed up against the "warranty" fuel cutoff. What am I saying - more fun to drive a "slow" car fast than a fast car slow. My last muscle car was a Bullitt "stang '01. the V6 ponies are WA Ytoo fast enough for anybody. -

AFA overtuned - The Honda would make 400 hp if it was a 5 litre - and this isan "economy" stroker small valve engine. V8s have been ridculously detuned for ages.


So THATS what happened to the ranger and yaris....
Yeah I know, cars are throwaway junk now with no reliability. Never had ANY engine or trans issues with my 86 Yugo GV. Then there the garbage ILSAC oil PYB and VWB and E10 Fuel = Grenade city.
Honda is next prob. And, You know what - I could care less now. Trade it. And "too bad" to the next owners.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

I agree with steve that the DOHC cammer 90v8 are way too complex and bulky - and I will add -not needed in ANY passenger car made today. This from builder of: a 327 v8 vega, 355 ChevyII, '69 428 CJ Fairlaine Fastback; and the best - 67 396 SS Chevy Chevelle. All STick xcars except the vega.
From a dirt old hotrodder - Most of you guys are pretty pitiful bunch of benchracers

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
I agree with steve that the DOHC cammer 90v8 are way too complex and bulky - and I will add -not needed in ANY passenger car made today. This from builder of: a 327 v8 vega, 355 ChevyII, '69 428 CJ Fairlaine Fastback; and the best - 67 396 SS Chevy Chevelle. All STick xcars except the vega.
From a dirt old hotrodder - Most of you guys are pretty pitiful bunch of benchracers

So because you wrenched on some old GM small blocks "back in the day" (and a big block from both Ford and GM) this somehow gives you more credibility?

Give me a break.

I've wrenched on plenty of GM small blocks, Ford small blocks (and I've posted pictures, videos and details of my efforts... something you've never done on here), Gray marine engines, Ford Y-blocks, Chris-Craft straight 6 and straight 4 engines, Chrysler marine big and small block engines....etc. The list goes on and on and on.

But somehow, I still don't think I know better than Ford does. There is nothing inherently "complex" about a DOHC setup. There really aren't any more parts than a pushrod engine, the parts are simply DIFFERENT and the engines LARGER because the cams are on the heads. Yes, they have a lot more timing chain, but they also don't have any pushrods or rockers.

So who are you to determine and dictate what is needed in a passenger car today? Where's YOUR engine that makes 400+HP and gets this sort of fuel mileage and retains this sort of driveability?

Face it, your post is an opinion piece, nothing more. The Modulars have proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that an OHC V8 can be a relatively problem-free, and insanely long-lasting engine. Certain matching and arguably beating the push-rod engines they replaced.

Honda, Toyota...etc, when was the last time they made a push-rod anything? Are their engines regarded as unreliable? How about overly complex and bulky?

The only thing worse than a bench racer is the guy that refuses to drag himself out of the stone age and embrace the fact that the world is moving forward, whether he likes it or not.

The 400HP SBF that I've been wrenching on just took a trip to Montreal with its owner. Tuned with a laptop and a PMS. And I'll drive home from work today in my 400HP daily driver that gets better gas mileage, makes more torque, but doesn't feel half as horny in the top-end as that SBF does. And won't be as fast as the track either.

It is ALL relative.

And it is quite easy to have an appreciation for ALL types of engine designs and how their differences allow one of them to be more capable or appropriate in one situation than another. It just takes opening your mind.



***The really observant among our readers will note that I've not argued one is "better" than the other at any point in this thread. And those that understand the points I have made already know why

***

 

[Nick R]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
I agree with steve that the DOHC cammer 90v8 are way too complex and bulky - and I will add -not needed in ANY passenger car made today. This from builder of: a 327 v8 vega, 355 ChevyII, '69 428 CJ Fairlaine Fastback; and the best - 67 396 SS Chevy Chevelle. All STick xcars except the vega.
From a dirt old hotrodder - Most of you guys are pretty pitiful bunch of benchracers

So because you wrenched on some old GM small blocks "back in the day" (and a big block from both Ford and GM) this somehow gives you more credibility?

Give me a break.

I've wrenched on plenty of GM small blocks, Ford small blocks (and I've posted pictures, videos and details of my efforts... something you've never done on here), Gray marine engines, Ford Y-blocks, Chris-Craft straight 6 and straight 4 engines, Chrysler marine big and small block engines....etc. The list goes on and on and on.

But somehow, I still don't think I know better than Ford does. There is nothing inherently "complex" about a DOHC setup. There really aren't any more parts than a pushrod engine, the parts are simply DIFFERENT and the engines LARGER because the cams are on the heads. Yes, they have a lot more timing chain, but they also don't have any pushrods or rockers.

So who are you to determine and dictate what is needed in a passenger car today? Where's YOUR engine that makes 400+HP and gets this sort of fuel mileage and retains this sort of driveability?

Face it, your post is an opinion piece, nothing more. The Modulars have proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that an OHC V8 can be a relatively problem-free, and insanely long-lasting engine. Certain matching and arguably beating the push-rod engines they replaced.

Honda, Toyota...etc, when was the last time they made a push-rod anything? Are their engines regarded as unreliable? How about overly complex and bulky?

The only thing worse than a bench racer is the guy that refuses to drag himself out of the stone age and embrace the fact that the world is moving forward, whether he likes it or not.

The 400HP SBF that I've been wrenching on just took a trip to Montreal with its owner. Tuned with a laptop and a PMS. And I'll drive home from work today in my 400HP daily driver that gets better gas mileage, makes more torque, but doesn't feel half as horny in the top-end as that SBF does. And won't be as fast as the track either.

It is ALL relative.

And it is quite easy to have an appreciation for ALL types of engine designs and how their differences allow one of them to be more capable or appropriate in one situation than another. It just takes opening your mind.



***The really observant among our readers will note that I've not argued one is "better" than the other at any point in this thread. And those that understand the points I have made already know why

***


Very well said chris. Seriously, sure engines are a bit more complicated than they used to be. But I don't see them breaking down all over the place. The thing that annoys me most is when people think that because they've worked on some engines they are qualified to design them and judge whether an engine design is good or bad. Soemtimes it's obvious, you know, the chrysler 2.7L , or the GM 3.1/3.4/3.8 gasket problems.

But it is ridiculous to say that OHC engines are less reliable. I personally don't think that progress and new stuff is a bad thing. For example, I'm a proponent of DI (done right anyway), VVT, DOHC, turbo'ed small engines, the list goes on. Maybe that's because I'm 20, and I've grown up with technology.

I'm not afraid of technology, and I definitely don't feel that cars were better "in the good old days of pushrods, carbs, distributors, and manuals"

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Nick R

Very well said chris. Seriously, sure engines are a bit more complicated than they used to be. But I don't see them breaking down all over the place. The thing that annoys me most is when people think that because they've worked on some engines they are qualified to design them and judge whether an engine design is good or bad. Soemtimes it's obvious, you know, the chrysler 2.7L , or the GM 3.1/3.4/3.8 gasket problems.

But it is ridiculous to say that OHC engines are less reliable. I personally don't think that progress and new stuff is a bad thing. For example, I'm a proponent of DI (done right anyway), VVT, DOHC, turbo'ed small engines, the list goes on. Maybe that's because I'm 20, and I've grown up with technology.

I'm not afraid of technology, and I definitely don't feel that cars were better "in the good old days of pushrods, carbs, distributors, and manuals"


That's the thing though Nick, they really aren't more complicated. They are just DIFFERENT.

How many parts does a COP have? Three. Coil, spring, boot.

So, take a typical 4.6L Modular, you have:

1. ECM
2. MAF
3. ECT
4. ACT
5. IAC
6. 4x O2's
7. 8x COP's
8. 8x Injectors
9. 2x Heads
10. intake manifold
11. 2x camshafts
12. 16x HLA's
13. 2x timing chains

Carb'd Windsor:
1. Intake manifold
2. air cleaner heat pipe assembly
3. choke temp sensor and arm assembly
4. carburetor (which is FULL of parts)
5. distributor
6. Coil
7. 8x plug wires
8. Cap
9. Rotor
10. Duraspark box
11. Camshaft
12. Timing set
13. 16x lifters
14. 16x pushrods
15. 16x rockers

The rest of the parts like PS pump, alternator, water pump....etc are all common between the two.

So which is REALLY more complex?

The REAL issue is that people get comfortable with how something works, and then they get attached to that. Then when something different comes along they are afraid to move away from what they know and are comfortable with to something new that they do not understand.

You need some wrenches and screwdrivers to tune a carb'd car as well as a set of jets, accelerator pump cams, accelerator pumps themselves, power valves (the above assumed we are talking about a Holley) then you can get into air bleeds and all the fun stuff with the higher end carbs.

You need a laptop and a tuning device to tune an EFI car. And the changes can be done in real time.

(A wideband is pretty much necessary for the latter and certainly helps with the former).

I've done plenty of both. Some people just don't like tuning a car with a laptop. And that's fine! But it doesn't magically make the laptop tuning more difficult. If anything, the laptop tuning is easier IMHO.

 

[mechanicx]

Well I still say a 4V has a lot more parts, cost and complexity than OHV pushrod engine. 4 cams, and twice the valves and timing drive simply cost more and weigh more. That's not to say it is unreliable.

Really the main reason for for going 4 valve is to get more power out of smaller displacement. There's nothing stone age about the LS being pushrod really. It takes more know how to make the valvetrain stable at high RPM and to breath and make power than with a 4V. Really the 5L out put is OK but not anything special. Your average V6s in family sedans make more HP/L.

Most hot rodders would choose the biggest LS motor and have easy 500-600 HP over the 4V V8. Unless of course they are a Ford fan boys, then suddenly Honda and Toyota were right to use 4Vs. they'll even argue the 4.6 2V modular is the bees knees.

 

[mechanicx]

OK but take the next step and price all those parts. 8 injectors alone can cost $1000. And don't forget wiring harness, high pressure fuel pump etc. You price all those parts new and it's thousands of dollars. Better it may be but I think it's kind of wacky to say it's not more expensive and complicated. And I hope you are going to say you can get some of those parts needed cheap used. Back in the day you could trip over almost free low milage carburetors and distributors.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Well I still say a 4V has a lot more parts, cost and complexity than OHV pushrod engine. 4 cams, and twice the valves and timing drive simply cost more and weigh more. That's not to say it is unreliable.

Really the main reason for for going 4 valve is to get more power out of smaller displacement. There's nothing stone age about the LS being pushrod really. It takes more know how to make the valtrain stable at high RPM and to breath and make power than with a 4V. Really the 5L out put is OK but not anything special. Your average V6s in family sedans make more HP/L.

Most hot rodders would choose the biggest LS motor and have easy 500-600 HP over the 4V V8. Unless of course they are a Ford fan boys, then suddenly Honda and Toyota were right to use 4Vs. they'll even argue the 4.6 2V modular is the bees knees.


I dunno, most Ford guys I know would choose a Termi swap if they were going for jam. A pair of hair dryers and you are at 800+RWHP reliably.

While the 4V have more valves and cams, they don't have rockers or pushrods either. And it isn't like insanely high flow heads don't exist for pushrod applications. You and I both know they do. It is the ability to be able to move the power band around with variable cam timing on both the intake and exhaust cams separately that allows the smaller displacement engine to still make big power and not be an utter turd in the torque department.

My little 5.0L makes 390lb-ft with an almost perfectly flat torque "curve" from just above idle. BMW did this with cam timing.

So no need to get snarky with the Ford comments, we've kept this one pretty civil. The GM boys will go cubes with an LS, the Ford boys will probably go boosted on a 32V Modular. Nothing wrong with either approach IMHO.

And FWIW, the 5.0L makes 89HP/L.

GM's 3.6L in the Impala makes 83HP/L, Ford's 3.5 in the Taurus makes 82HP/L, Chrysler's 3.6L in the 300 makes 81HP/L, Honda's 3.5L in the Accord makes 77HP/L, Toyota's 3.5L in the Avalon makes 76HP/L and Nissan's 3.5L in the Maxima makes 82HP/L.

So which average V6 in a family sedan makes more HP/L? Because none of the above do, LOL

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
OK but take the next step and price all those parts. 8 injectors alone can cost $1000. And don't forget wiring harness, high pressure fuel pump etc. You price all those parts new and it's thousands of dollars. Better it may be but I think it's kind of wacky to say it's not more expensive and complicated. And I hope you are going to say you can get some of those parts needed cheap used. Back in the day you could trip over almost free low milage carburetors and distributors.


For the Modulars at least, you can just hit a wreckers and grab something from a smashed cruiser or cab, at least that's how I've done it. Fuel pumps and stuff, just traded on message boards like this one. I've never paid anywhere CLOSE to $1,000 for a set of injectors, even new.

Motorcraft injectors on Summit:
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/ACF-CM5138/

$25.95/each. A set of 8 costs a whopping $207.00.

A wiring harness would only be replaced if you had an issue with it. That's uncommon. Fuel pumps are dirt cheap:

Walboro 255:
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/VPN-GSL392/

$112.00.

It really isn't as bad as you are making it out to be. You want to try expensive, price some BMW parts! LOL!

 

[mechanicx]

For one thing how in the heck is 412HP/5L 89 HP/L? You sure round figures up or down to support your argument. I get 82HP/L. I guess you are slipping in the BOSS and not this engine. And I think the '12 Impala 3.6L has 300 HP and 83 HP/L. In the Cadillacs and Camaros a little more. Point is it seems average sedan engines are in the same ballpark.

Anyway, it's funny how some people will insinuate the LS motor is stone age because of pushrods but a live axle is not lol.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
For one thing how in the heck is 412HP/5L 89 HP/L? You sure round figures up or down to support your argument. I get 82HP/L. I guess you are slipping in the BOSS and not this engine. And I think the '12 Impala 3.6L has 300 HP and 83 HP/L. In the Cadillacs and Camaros a little more. Point is it seems average sedan engines are in the same ballpark.

Anyway, it's funny how some people will insinuate the LS motor is stone age because of pushrods but a live axle is not lol.


Please, go take a look at the original post in this thread, where Nick linked a video to the BOSS 302 engine

I wasn't rounding anything up or down, just going by the video posted by the OP.

He misquoted 412HP, which isn't even right for the GT anymore, since for 2012, it is now 420HP. Which gives us 84HP/L, still higher (albeit by a whopping 1HP/L) than the sedans which you SPECIFICALLY stated as making MORE HP/L.

Originally Posted By: mechanic
Your average V6s in family sedans make more HP/L.


And I never once in this thread stated that the LS motor is stone age technology so I don't know where that came from? I'm a big fan of pushrod engines, if I wasn't, I wouldn't be working on them so often! LOL!

Don't be so serious, I think your general point is a reasonable one.