Im sure ford could, but it would cost 2x as much.
As for teh Cobra R making all that power, the Corvette did the same with a cheaper LS6, and then made more hp the next year. And it has 19/28mpg with a higher compression ratio. So, 405hp, 19/28mpg and cheaper to produce and if Im not mistaken, the Cobra R doesnt come with any warranty where the Corvette does.
So, there you have it. Im sure Ford coudl make a 405hp N/A block, but they havent yet, and it would cost a lot of money. Think about how much a 390hp n/a regular Cobra would cost? The Gen III and upcoming Gen IV motors are fantastic motors.

 

Considering the article in question says there's a roughly $800 price disparity between OHC and OHV, I think that's more than enough to purchase the LS6 if it were available in a chassis the customer is willing to pay for. Considering its only available in 2 $50K cars its not really comparable IMO. However, why are we comparing a new 4.6 to an LS1 that came out in 1997?

I think the proper comparison is the LS2 or at a minimum the GTO's LS1 which has a tad higher output than the other LS1s.

If we are comparing the base performance engine from each manufacturer its 4.6 vs LS1 in the areas of total output, brake specific fuel consumption (MPG, but that is dependent on trans and chassis), exterior size, weight, and reliability. That is apples to apples.

 

Does anyone have numbers for how much it actually costs to produce either of these motors? I really dont think either is expensive. Both are used across the board, and in both corporations trucks. I dont see either motor being terribly expensive to produce at all.

I didnt know the Cobra R didnt have a warranty, but then again it was a purpose built race car. Nobody will give a warranty on a car thats going to be raced.

I agree the Gen III and Gen IV motors are great, but we'll see how Ford steps up to the plate in the upcomign years. GM now has the 400hp LS2, LS7 on the way. Wonderful motor, more power and it retained the LS1's EPA rating.

The new SOHC ford is making 300hp on 87 octane. Imagine what the DOHC version will do with higher compression.

Only time will tell.

 

Steve, I am certain, granted w/o knowing for sure, that the LS1 is cheaper to produce. THink about the 4.6. The added complexity of OHV means more parts and greater assembly time. Capital costs and labor are going to be higher per unit. That's sort of the point of the article.

 

Oh I understand, with more complexity the DOHC motor is definately going to take more time to build and manufacture. I'd just be interested to see the real numbers.

I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers or anything, I'm LSx series motor fan myself, just curious.

 

Lets keep in mind some basic hot-rodding facts (which I feel sometimes we are short on in this forum...lots of magazine racers in here sometimes).

THe key to making power is airflow...the greater airflow the more power potential. In that vein, it does not matter how many valves you use to acheive this airflow. If you need multiple valves to get the flow, great. But if you can do it with SOHV, great. Just because you have more cams, valves, valvesprings, rockers, etc. is totally irrelevant if total flow is less, because power will be less, assuming all else is equal.

Obviously valve size is limited in the 4.6 due to the smaller bore, thus the need to go to DOHC to make the big power. But such is not the case for the LS1/LS6/LS2. larger bore means the total valve area of the single intake valve (and exhaust for that matter) can be greater w/o reaching the limits of the bore prematurely...and thus greater flow can be acheived with less complexity and lower cost to manufacture.

It was clearly Ford's choice to go this route, they could have developed a shorter stroke, bigger bore engine and avoided the problems but perhaps corporate culture dictated a powerplant that would be perceived as more "advanced." But one has to wonder just how big such a motor would have been since the 4.6 is already a relative hoss in terms of weight and dimensions.

 

The usual GM vs. Ford arguments aside, I have to laugh when people say OHC engines are "new" technology and pushrods are "antiques." All it is is a different way of doing things....BOTH motor designs have been around since the dawn of the 20th century....

 

considering displacment a 4.6 DOHC ford is not far off HP wise from a 5.7 LS1. 305Ford to 310-320GM.Rear wheel hp for the ford is about 270-280.whats a stock F-body LS1 getting at the rear???Not 50 more like pacerX said.

 

I got 316/336 with my stock LS1. The reason the mach ETs close to the LS1 is gearing, not HP in my opinion. I still see LS1s trapping 2-3 mph higher...

 

aint no arguing there,3.55 gears,a DOHC motor that redlines at 6800rpm ect. Thats why a mach's advantage is at the start.Which is also why I don't like to race a LS1 from a roll on.I love both of these cars,the GM has its advantages and so does the ford.I don't get into import stuff . the mustang has a better seat position and a little more back seat room,thats why the next camaro will be with a trunk.I love my 94 Z28,but ya sit on the floor and nobody wants to get into the back.Lets see what happens in 4 years,maybe the new camaro will be a bit more user friendly.

 

Sorry to co-hijack this thread a little....

I've sat in the back seat of a Mustang years ago and that was the last time I'll ever do that. I've sat in the back seat of a Camaro with far fewer complaints...There is more room in the back seat of a Camaro.

 

well, I have both,and my teenage daughters refuse to get into the back of the Z28.and reluctantly get into the stang.Im 6',220 and I can take the back seat for a very short trip in the stang,but the Z's seat absolutely kills me.JMO

 

Welpers, I've seen stock LS1's lay down anything from 308 to 322. Doing the math backwards, that gets you 350ish.

The Fords are (were) pretty well rated at what they put out.

Doing the same math on 270-280 gets you roughly 50hp lower than the LS1.

Both assume 15% drivetrain loss. Bigger wheels and tires on the LS1's vs. IRS on the 4.6's.

Like I said, 50hp.

 

Look, the only way I think this "arguement" can be solved is to have the latest 4.6L and the latest LS1/6 (going by the original comparison) and put them both on a rack. Give them both 10 gallons of gas and rev them both to 3000 rpm. Let's see which one get better mileage. Otherwise we're just having a pissing match on subjective bullsh t. So I ask again, does anyone have any OBJECTIVE data to show? I'm talking on the rack comparisons. Us "magazine" racers (LOL) want to know.

 

Actually we could hook up the engines to a computer that will tell us how much gas is burning/sec(or minute) at what RPM. But....I don't think any of us have that ability right now...