I don't get your math.If a mach gets270- 280 rwhp and a LS1 gets 310-320 thats about 40hp at the rear.Some cars get less,some more.Thats not taking into account ram air from the mach's shaker.Also mach's don't get IRS.Drivers race I say.

 

yes, but with GM's engines one can clearly trace lineage back to the turn of the 20th century as well. there are vestigial "parts" in those engines for goodness sakes that exist only because at some point they served a purpose and were bypassed rather than being completely re-engineered. I clearly recall the 3.1L in my mom's Buick having a truncated distributor shaft where the once was a distributor, yet it served absolutely no purpose because the engine had SFI and electronic ignition from the factory. this is the kind of thing that saves GM $800 per engine! NOT just the fact that they are less complex, but because they are OLD as fark. and THAT'S what tarnishes people's perception of pushrods. not that it's old tech in the sense that it was invented earlier, but that its that it is used in engines that truly ARE old and passed on as new. if GM went on and made a truly state of the art pushrod engine and then carried this kind of thinking through to their lower end engines, people's perceptions would surely change and people would possibly even buy more cars (imagine that!). but then GM wouldn't be saving $800 per engine selling cars to an increasingly aged and dwindling customer base and who in their right mind would want to change that!?

BAH!

 

And, of course, this nonsense would miss the main strength of OHV design - enough low-end torque to drive the .5 overdrive in 6th gear on a 3.42 rear end.

 

Lesse here...

308 * 1.15 = 354
322 * 1.15 = 370

270 * 1.15 = 310
280 * 1.15 = 322

354 - 310 = 44hp
370 - 322 = 48hp

Average difference = 46hp, which rounds up to 50.

Spot any driver worth a damn 40hp in basically equivalent weight cars and you'll lose.

PS - SS's have ram air too... and better tires... 275's vs. 245's. Seeyalaterbye!

 

If you notice, the article mentions the Hemi and GM puckup V8s which are both clean sheet designs, both V8s share NO PARTS with past pushrod engines. The new 3.9L pushrod V6 coming out has something like 90% new parts, and the carry over parts have been re-engineered. The 3.9L will also feature DoD and VVT, technology no other OHC engine has both of.

 

right you are. Only thing that seperates OHV to OHC was VVt. That was the only "new" part of OHC because it was easier to do given the set up of teh OHC. Now that the technology is there, VVt can now be put on OHV engines. This levels the playing field. Now, with DoD and VVT, gas milage will go beyond what there OHC counterparts do, and still provide a strong low end, and greater top end. Compare any OHC vs OHV, and the technology of both date back to abotu the same, with OHV being a tad older, but they basicly have been around for the same time. There is nothing "new" in an OHC engine. VVT and VTEC etc etc are all advancements in OHC technology. THAT is whats "new". GM has been making OHC engines for some time, and makes one hell of a OHC engine in the northstar class, ecotec, and now the HFV6's. We can drag this out all night, but put top 4.6 which is the Mach 1 vs the top 5.7 which is the LS6. The LS6 gets better gas milage, better performance, stronger torque, cheaper build, and it uses ZERO(outside of rod bearings) parts from the past 2 generatoins. Teh Gen III and IV motors are probably the most advanced OHV engines on the planet. Pushrods are here to stay as long as GM can keep kicking tail with them. I have yet to see one person go "oh, it has pushrods?? ahhh nevermind, VTECK owns." So, like I said, as long as GM can own everyone with there "old" and "out dated" pushrods, they are hear to stay.
pushrods.

 

The top 4.6 is the Cobra, not Mach1...

 

I'd consider the Mach1 4.6L stronger than the old Cobras 4.6L, we are talking about N/A engines by the way.

 

Just a little note... if you want to convert from rwhp to fwhp and assuming a loss of 15%..then you've got 85% left at the rw...then take the rwhp divide it with 85 and multiply it with 100...fwhp=rwhp*(100/85) which is equal to fwhp=rwhp/0.85...just to get your thinking on the right track.

 

Actually I was talking factory engines, not N/A. Now you're putting restrictions on the arguement. That's why this topic is apples and oranges. It will never be objective...

 

K, I intentionally did it more conservatively with the formula, but here's what you get using your method.

308/.85 = 362
322/.85 = 379

270/.85 = 318
280/.85 = 329

In the end, your numbers work even further in the LS1's favor:

362 - 318 = 44
379 - 329 = 50

Avg difference = 47hp

 

If you are comparing engine architectures, then you want to keep it either S/C vs. S/C or N/A vs. N/A that would be apples to apples.

also for those comparing HP per L, that comparison only works if you compare at the same RPM.

 

Saving a lousy "$800" isn't enough to sway me. I'd say that a "High Value V6" Malibu is worth a good $8,000 less to me than some of the best Japanese sedans. When you consider that a fully optioned Malibu LT is within $3,500 of a base Infiniti G35, the GM product looks pretty lame.



If you think loaded Malibu LT vs. stripped Camry LE 4-cylinder, you've got the right idea.

 

Engine specs aside...the $800 you're saving on the engine goes into getting the stick. From what I've seen GM usually charges for manuals while some other automakers don't. Save here, charge there.

 

N/A, forced induction, it doesn't matter. You can have a subjective analysis on everything except perhaps true fuel efficiency since the chassis, etc. affect this so much. LIke I said before, simply compare total output, weight, dimensions, and reliability.

THis allows you to compare any two engines on the planet, just so happens this thread was started as 4.6 vs LS1. If we want to discuss 4.6supercharged vs. LS6 then that's a different thread IMO.