I'm with you on that Proud....all the way!

If the 5th gen is to be a success for more than it's initial 2 years after intro...someone at GM will need to take it's developement seriously.

We need variety. We need more powertrain choices. We need highly defined and differentiated models.

Is this such a difficult concept to grasp.

 

300 HP GT motor eh?

It's a good think us LS1 folk rear wheel higher than that.

I gonna guess the new GT will have 280~ rwhp.

 

GM was doing the same thing in the 80's with the 305, 350, and 4.3. Although they didnt have the variation you described, they easily could have produced a 327 and a 302 also. With the 4.3 could have came other stroked/destroked engines, but the only other popular GM V6 from the 80's that comes to mind was the 3.8. Ford does one-up GM in this idea with the dohc designs though.

I dont see why GM didnt want to offer a mid-engine, evidnetly they never sat down and looked at history to see how many 305 tbi/tpi engines were moved out the door vs 350 tpi engines went (which a few 305 sales can be attributed to lack of a 5 speed with the 350, and in 91-92 lack of ttops with a 350, but Id be willing to say the vast majority went because the cost savings). A good example were the people who would option down the IROCs to 305 tbis and GTAs to 305 tpis to save money.

 

The word on pricing is that they will mirror the current Mustang's MSRP's pretty closely.

Figure about $18k for a base car.

Low to mid $20's for a GT.

Under $30k for Mach 1 or Boss.

Low to mid $30's for base 400hp Cobra.

High $30's to low $40's for 500hp Cobra.

 

It's a very exciting time to be a "Ford Guy". Ford has worked very closely with Mustang Fans to deliver a car that almost everyone can get excited about - because it's the car they asked for.

I have a feeling that if and when GM does a 5th gen Camaro they will take the "here it is take it or leave it" approach.

The engines are a case in point - GM maintains that they couldn't offer more than two engine choices (something many have asked for) despite having a plethora of V6's, supercharged V6's, various truck V8's, two corvette V8's, and other engine types.

If I ran GM, I'd have a DOHC high feature V6 as the base engine, a 5.3L V8 RS and a 6.0L monster for the Z/28.

 

And to think I was strongly chastized when I called another GM rep an idiot.

Maybe they don't work at Ford, but I suspect any 10 year old with a passing intrest in cars knows at least that Ford has different levels of performance with their Mustang V8s. I would expect someone in the business to know this as well.

I sincerly hope the one that told you that was the same one that told the press the new Police Tahoe was going up against the Crown Victoria. It wouldn't look too good at all if it wasn't.

Think the guy is aware that Ford is actually replacing the Mustang next year?

 

Bad news. It wasn't.

 

Hey Proud.There were 2 engines made for the gt90.one was 2 duratec v6's squished together.The one u speak of was the one it ended up with.
hit me

 

Yup. There were several attempts by various groups to supply power for that car. There was also an engine made from two I-6's that were combined, and some 1-off propsals that died on the vine. I've seen lots of literature on the car that quoted "proposed" powerplants as the actual one in the car - hence my caution to those reading my post about bad sites and erroneous data.

Back to the thread topic - you know, I'm the first to admit that GM powertrain has done an outstanding job in recent years. They have defied what many though was impossible to do with OHV engines regarding economy and service. I guess my point about the engine program at Ford was to demonstrate that the two have chosen different paths for different reasons... Ford went modular design to help with manufacturing costs and offer flexibility while risking the move into new territory for production vehicles (OHC's, multi-valve, and alloys to name a few), and unproven performance. GM decided to cotinue to refine, hone, and improve on existing technology (like pushrods, OHVs, and engine management technology) to get better economy and performance, but at what cost? Today, we are witnessing the results of corporate decisions made 10 or more years ago, and it's interesting IMO.

I'm also surprised that with GM powertrain's recent successes and developments, that they cannot economically provide 3 or 4 different configurations to a vehicle like an F5. That they didn't do it in the F4 is also hard to swallow. It could have reaped them a bounty of additional sales IMO, for the engine AND the car line both.

Lastly, let's talk swapping... I admit that I have no idea how hard it is to swap any LS1 or components between a Vette, Camaro, T/A, or even truck. But there is a rampant run in junkyards right now for modular engine parts. Example - people are hunting down the upper and lower intakes off the V8 Explorers because they have longer runners and provide improved torque over the stock Mustang unit at low RPMs. They bolt straight onto the V8 Mustang blocks, and the Mustang's cam and computer still provide the top-end HP. People are hoarding the 5.4's out of Navigators, Expeditions, and F-150s to drop into Mustangs too. Head swaps between the 5.4 and the 4.6 will net you both torque AND hp improvements due to valve configuration and porting, especially with iron lungs. Obviously there is lots of anticipation over 2V-to-4V head swaps on the 4.6 once they become more plentiful. This is becomming the hot thing these days, is piecing together various parts of different modular engines to create your own "specialized" performer suited to your setup - another unforseen benefit of modular designing. Does any of this go on with the 4th gens/LS1 stuff at all?

 

I seriously doubt that it is expensive for GM to make it's pushrod engines. I was told that it costs GM less money to make the 3800 Series II then it does to make the old Shortstar V6. OHC engines are expensive to make and manufacture from serveal aspects. They are more complicated to machine, have more parts, and use more material. On top of that Ford's mod engines are dirty burners and require alot of emissions controls. I think GM's problem in the Camaro is more how do you keep it seprate from the Corvette. Ford has never had an equivelent to the Corvette, so the Mustang has almost filled both roles alowing for more models. I imagin if you combined the resources the Camaro and Corvette got combined while they were alive they would equal or exceed the Mustangs.

 

I didn't mean cost as in $, I mean cost in a bigger sense, like lost sales due to fewer choices, the fastest ponycar of the day being 86'd, etc.

I also wasn't comparing mustang engine availability to Camaro or Vette availability - I was talking WHOLE CORPORATE LINEUP. Honestly, I can't name you an engine outside of the 03 Cobra's S/C4.6 variant that was ever designed explicitly for the Mustang - and even the 4.6 it's built on is not a Mustang-specific design, only the details of it are. Mustang has always shared with others. Actually, it has always used engines developed for other cars. The same can't be said for the Vette, but the costs and sales figures are different too, so it's kinda moot.

 

A 500HP Cobra?? So that means the current Ford GT engine is rumored to find its way into the cobra? I'm excited, but something tells me that if a cobra like that is ever built, it will be in VERY small numbers, like 1000/year...I don't see ford putting too many monsters like that on the street...

 

ProudPony,

What is the entire GM Gen III LS1/6/Vortec V8 line if not a modular engine program?

All the blocks/heads are interchangeable except where bore size limits valve size, cams are interchangeable too. Vortec truck motors have a different intake but basically they all were developed from the LS1.

I'm not knocking Ford's program...it is maturing into a decent arrangement, but its hardly revolutionary and GM has done the same thing, I would argue, at far less total expense.

The 4.6 mod motor has undergone so many minor start-of-year and mid-year changes that you really have to search to find correct replacement parts like a block..unlike GM stuff where the basic components have not been altered to the point of non-interchangeability.

That's why I fail to see the resistance to a mid level V8 program for the Camaro. I would understand Scott's claim of cost-prohibitiveness if we were talking about a 100% different engine with totally different wiring, electronics, dimensions, etc. But all that is really needed is another cam for goodness sakes. Something to make a quantifiable power difference w/o resorting to smoke & mirror packages like "ram air" hoods.

I see no reason the 4.8 or 5.3L V8 Vortec could not have been cast with an aluminum block and fitted with an LS1/6 intake and stuffed into a base F-body. Yes you would have to do some recertifications in terms of crash testing/emissions testing, etc., but I think the potential sales would have more than justified the cost.

Of course that would have pushed Z28 up a notch, since it could no longer be just a stripped down, base-looking V8 coupe. It would have had to have some visual distinction at that point.

---
And let me add just as an aside that the original Gen 1 Chevy Small block is the undisputed King of parts interchangeability. Any displacement from 265-400 produced during the 40+ year run shares basic parts interchangeability. Heads are identical left to right (unlike Fords), All those engines share identical external dimensions and in general (some exceptions) cranks, rods, etc. are all interchangeable except where journal sizes differ. Heads are interchangeable, cams are all interchangeable, intakes are all interchangeable. This is all indisputable.

 

Heck, even a cast iron 4.8 would have been good. And I agree, I also believe increased sales would have far outweighed cost.

 

I think we're on the same page here, but with different colors of ink. Certainly, I have never said that GM's designs were all 1-off and application specific. The interchangeablity issue was exactly what I was asking about in my prior post, because I just don't see or hear of a lot of guys doing this kind of swapping with their LS1 cars. Knowing that they CAN be swapped but guys just aren't doing it much says something else altogether. But remember too, the "modular" program means more than interchangeable parts... it's the entire package - tooling, design, implementation, everything.

I can't agree with you more. Nothing to add there.


This whole idea is not new of interchanging parts to be sure.
To claim the SBC "undisputed king" may be jumpin to conclusions though. A definite key player, but not the only one... my turn

The small block Ford came about in 1962 as a 221ci, 90-degree V8 made in the Windsor facility. The same basic block evolved through bore/stroke changes for 20 years, and settled on 2 units for another 20, still being made today foor marine and industrial use but not in autos. It saw 221, 260, 289, 302, and 351 inch configurations. ALL will interchange parts, though one-way-only in some cases. A 221 went to 260 via 3.5" to 3.8" bore change only. The 289 came from a 260 via a 4.0" bore change - same stroke too. The 302 has the same bore as the 289 at 4.0, but stroke increased from 2.87" to 3.0" even. (Nice number to memorize too BTW, all 302's are 4.0" bore x 3.0" stroke - easy to check for overbored blocks at a flea market or swap meet ) The 351 Windsor has the same basics as the 302 with a 4" bore but a 3.5" stroke. Firing orders, heads, cranks and most support equipment will interchange readily. The same goes for the FE-series big block stuff too, the 352 became 360, 390, 406, 427 SOHC, 427 Thunderbolt, 427 Side oiler, and finally the 428 which evolved into 428 Police Interceptors and 428 Cobra Jets.

I'm not going to argue over who's stuff is more interchangeable - both the general and Ford have had credible programs that are probably more alike than most of us even realize. It was all good ol' American Iron IMO!